
Gass 
Book L 



• , 



/?/3 



1 




H§Hf 
His 

W^M I v.- 1 

■ 9B 

BBHr 



1 1 ^H I 



■ 






Mffft 


■ 

BfiSw 

MKgn 


UK 



£$$9$ 



63d Congress ) ottimatit f Report 

/,/> . SENATE | Na ?2 



MEDIATION, CONCILIATION, AND ARBITRATION 

IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN RAILWAY 

EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES 



£3=- 
REPORT 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
I X ITED STATESMEN ATE 

A 
ox 

S. 2517 

A BILL PROVIDING FOR MEDIATION. CONCILIATION, AND 
ARBITRATION IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CER- 
TAIN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES 



WITH HEARINGS 



PRESENTED BY MR. NEWLANDS 
Jul* Mi. 1913. — Ordered to bo printed 



• ;n\<,To.\ 
RNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1913 



"h 

1> - ■>> 5 A 



0, OF D, 
JUL 15 1913 






in. 



^ 



V V 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Senate report on S . 2517 5 

Senate hearings on S. 2517 7 



63d Congress. ) SENATE. ( Report 

1st Session. \ 1 No. 72. 



MEDIATION, CONCILIATION, AND ARBITRATION IN CONTROVERSIES 
BETWEEN RAILWAY EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. 



Junb 23, L913.— Ordered to ho primed. 

July 10, 1913. — Presented to he printed. 



Mr. Xkw lands, from the Committee on Interstate Commerce, sub- 
mitted the following 

REPORT. 

(To accompany S. 2517.] 

The Committee on Interstate Commerce, having had under consid- 
eration the bill providing for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration 
in controversies between certain employers and their employees, 
report the same back with the recommendation that the bill pass 
without amendment. 

This bill has received the approval of the representatives of the 
various railroad employees' organizations; the prominent officials of 
or -i\ great railway systems; the committee of the National 
Civic Federation; of Mr. Chief Justice Knapp, of the Commerce 
Court: and of Dr. Charles P. Neill, former Commissioner of Labor. 
These representatives appeared before the Committee on Interstate 
Commerce and presented their views in full. The hearings are of 
importance and are attached hereto. They include the statements of 
Hon. Seth Low. president of the National Civic Federation; Hon. 
Martin A. Knapp. chief justice of the Commerce Court; Mr. W. S. 
Carter, president Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine- 
men: Mr. A. B. Garretson, president Order of Railway Conductors; 
W. W. Atterbury, viee president Pennsylvania Railroad; Dr. Charles 
P. Neill, formerly Commissioner of Labor; Hon. William B. Wilson. 
Secretary of Labor; Mr. Daniel Willard, president Baltimore & Ohio 
Railroad; Mr. Warren S. Stone, grand chief International Brotherhood 
of Locomotive Engineers; and Mr. George A. Post, president Railway 
Business Association. 

The hearing- -how — 

First. That the committee on draft of proposed changes in the 
Erdman An was as follows: William C. Brown, president New York 
Central Line-: W. >. Carter, president Brotherhood Locomotive Fire- 
men and Enginemen; Ralph M. Easley, chairman executive council 
the National Civic Federation; A. B. Garretson, president Order of 
Railway Conductors; Hon. Martin A. Knapp. judge United States 
Commerce Court; W. (r. Lee, president Brotherhood Railway Train- 

5 



D AEBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

men; Robert S. Lovett, president Union Pacific Railroad; Hon. Seth 
Low, president the National Civic Federation; Marcus M. Marks, 
chairman department on industrial mediation law the National Civic 
Federation; Darius Miller, president Chicago, Burlington & Quincy 
Railroad; Charles P. Neill, former Commissioner Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, United States Department of Labor; H. B. Perham, presi- 
dent Brotherhood Railway Telegraphers; Samuel Rea, president 
Pennsylvania Railroad; Warren S. Stone, grand chief International 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Frank Trumbull, chairman 
board of directors Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad and of the Missouri, 
Kansas & Texas Railway; Charles A. Wickersham, president Atlanta 
& West Point Railroad and of the Western Railway of Alabama; and 
Daniel Willard, president Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

Second. That that committee was unanimous in its approval of the 
proposed bill. 

Third. That Secretary Wilson, of the Department of Labor, whilst 
sympathetic with the general purpose of the bill, objected to the pro- 
vision which made the board of mediation independent of the Depart- 
ment of Labor, urging that the Commissioner of Labor should be made 
by law one of the board of mediation. 

Fourth. That a strike of the railway employees was then pending, 
a vote being in process which would determine the action of the rail- 
way brotherhoods. 

Fifth. That both the representatives of the brotherhoods and the 
representatives of the railways regarded the independence of the 
mediation board to be appointed by the President as essential, and 
that they objected to connecting it with any department. 

Sixth. That when the original Erdman Act was passed the Com- 
missioner of Labor was not connected with any department, but that 
the Bureau of Labor was subsequently incorporated with the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, and was, later on, transferred to the 
Department of Labor. 

This committee was of the opinion that the recommendations of the 
railway employees, through their brotherhoods, and of the railway 
officials, and of Mr. Justice Knapp, of Dr. Neill, and of the committee 
of the Civic Federation should be approved as in line with industrial 
peace; that the suggestions made by them for the composition of 
existing difficulties should be approved by congressional action; and 
that it was of the highest importance that the methods of mediation 
and arbitration should be satisfactory to the parties concerned, and 
that no considerations of public policy were in conflict with such 
action. 



HEARINGS BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON H. R. 2517 

A BILL PROVIDING FOR MEDIATION, CONCILIATION, AND 
ARBITRATION IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CER- 
TAIN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES 



COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
United States Senate. 

FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS, Nevada, Chairman. 
ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. MOSES E. CLAPP, Minnesota. 

ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio. ALBERT B. CUMMINS, Iowa. 

HENRY L. MYERS, Montana. FRANK B. BRANDEGEE, Connecticut. 

JOE T. ROBINSON, Arkansas. GEORGE T. OLIVER, Pennsylvania. 

WILLARD SAULSBURY, Delaware. HENRY F.- LIPPITT,. Rhode Island. 

WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Kansas. CHARLES E. TOWNSEND, Michigan. 

JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS, Illinois. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, Wisconsin. 

THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma. 

Millard F. Hudson, Clerk. 

Hall McAllister, 

Frank M. Young, 

Assistant Clerks. 



LIST OF WITNESSES. 



Page. 

Seth Low 17, 07 

Martin A. Knapp 26 

W. S. ( 'arter 39 

A . B. Garretson 42 

W. W. Atterbury 52 

Charles P. Neill. 54 

Willia m B . Wils< m 68 

Daniel Willard 73 

WarreD S. Stone 74 

re A. Poet 82 



ARBITRATION IN CONTROYERSIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND 

EMPLOYEES. 



FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1913. 

Committee on Interstate Commerce, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m. for the purpose of consider- 
ing the bill (S. 2517) providing for mediation, conciliation, and 
arbitration in controversies between certain employers and their 
employees, as follows: 

A BILL Providing for mediation, conciliation, and arbitration in controversies between 
certain employers and their employees. 

B< it enacted by the Senate aiid House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled. That the provisions of this act shall apply to 
any common carrier or carriers and their officers, agents, and employees, except 
masters of vessels and seamen, as defined in section forty-six hundred and 
twelve. Revised Statutes of the United States, engaged in the transportation of 
passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by 
water, for a continuous carriage or shipment from one State or Territory of the 
United States or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory of the 
United States or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United 
States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States 
through a foreign country to any other place in the United States. 

The term "railroad"' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries 
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use 
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a 
contract, agreement, or lease: and the term "transportation" shall Include all 
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage. 

The term " employees " as used in this act shall include all persons actually 
engaged in any capacity in train operation or train service of any description, 
and notwithstanding that the cars upon or in which they are employed may be 
held and operated by the carrier under lease or other contract: Provided, how- 
Tnat this art shall not be held to apply to employees of street railroads 
and shall apply only to employees engaged in railroad train service. In every 
such case the carrier shall be responsible for the acts and defaults of such 
employees in the same manner and to the same extent as if said cars were 
owned by it and said employees directly employed by it, and any provisions to 
the contrary of any snob lease or other contract shall be binding only as between 
the parties thereto and shall not affect the obligations of said carrier either to 
the public or to the private parties concerned. 

A common carrier subject to the provisions of this act is hereinafter referred 
a an "employer." and the employees of one or more of such carriers are 
hereinafter referred to as " employees." 

Sec. 2. That whenever a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor, or con- 
ditions of employment shall arise between an employer or employers and era- 
es subject to this act interrupting or threatening to interrupt the business 
of said employer or employers, to the serious detriment of the public interest, 
either party to such controversy may apply to the Board of Mediation and Con- 
ciliation created by this act and invoke its services for the purpose of bringing 

11 



12 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

about an amicable adjustment of the controversy; and upon the request of 
either party the said board shall, with all practicable expedition, put itself in 
communication with the parties to such controversy and shall use its best 
efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to an agreement; and if 
such efforts to bring about an amicable adjustment through mediation and con- 
ciliation shall be unsuccessful, the said board shall at once endeavor to induce 
the parties to submit their controversy to arbitration in accordance with the 
provisions of this act. 

In any case in which an interruption of traffic is imminent and fraught with 
serious detriment to the public interest the Board of Mediation and Concilia- 
tion may, if in its judgment such action seem desirable, proffer its services to 
the respective parties to the controversy. 

In any case in which a controversy arises over the meaning or the applica- 
tion of any agreement reached through mediation under the provisions of this 
act either party to the said agreement may apply to the Board of Mediation 
and Conciliation for an expression of opinion from such board as to the mean- 
ing or application of such agreement, and the said board shall, upon receipt of 
such request, give its opinion as soon as may be practicable. 

Sec. 3. That whenever a controversy shall arise between an employer or 
employers and employees subject to this act, which can not be settled through 
mediation and conciliation in the manner provided in the preceding section, 
such controversy may be submitted to the arbitration of a board of six, or. if 
the parties to the controversy prefer so to stipulate, to a board of three per- 
sons, which board shall be chosen in the following manner: In the case of a 
board of three, the employer or employers and the employees, parties, respec- 
tively, to the agreement to arbitrate, shall each name one arbitrator, and the two 
arbitrators thus chosen shall select the third arbitrator: but in the event of 
their failure to name the third arbitrator within five days after their first 
meeting, such third arbitrator shall be named by the Board of Mediation and 
Conciliation. In the case of a board of six, the employer or employers and the 
employees, parties, respectively, to the agreement to arbitrate, shall each name 
two arbitrators, and the four arbitrators thus chosen shall, by a majority vote, 
select the remaining two arbitrators ; but in the event of their failure to name 
the two arbitrators within fifteen days after their first meeting the said two 
arbitrators, or as many of them as have not been named, shall be named by the 
Board of Mediation and Conciliation. 

In the event that the employees engaged in any given controversy are not 
members of a labor organization, such employees may select a committee which 
shall have the right to name the arbitrator, or the arbitrators, who are to be 
named by the employees as provided above in this section. 

Sec. 4. That the agreement to arbitrate — 

First. Shall be in writing; 

Second. Shall stipulate that the arbitration is had under the provisions of 
this act ; 

Third. Shall state whether the board of arbitration is to consist of three or 
six members ; 

Fourth. Shall be signed by duly accredited representatives of the employer or 
employers and of the employees ; 

Fifth. Shall state specifically the questions to be submitted to the said board 
for decision ; 

Sixth. Shall stipulate that a majority of said board shall be competent to 
make a valid and binding award ; 

Seventh. Shall fix a period from the date of the appointment of the arbitrator 
or arbitrators necessary to complete the board, as provided for in the agree- 
ment, within which the said board shall commence its hearings; 

Eighth. Shall fix a period from the beginning of the hearings within which 
the said board shall make and file its award : Provided, That this period shall 
be thirty days unless a different period be agreed to ; 

Ninth. Shall provide for the date from which the award shall become effective 
and shall fix the period during which the said award shall continue in force; 

Tenth. Shall provide that the respective parties to the award will each faith- 
fully execute the same ; 

Eleventh. Shall provide that the award and the papers and proceedings, in- 
cluding the testimony relating thereto, certified under the hands of the arbitra- 
tors, and which shall have the force and effect of a bill of exceptions, shall be 
filed in the clerk's office of the district court of the United States for the district 
Tvherein the controversy arises or the arbitration is entered into, and shall be 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 13 

final and conclusive upon the parries to the agreement unless set aside Cor error 
of law apparent on the record; 

Twelfth. May also provide that any difference arising as to the meaning or 
the application of the provisions of an award made by a board of arbitration 
shall be referred back to the same board or to a subcommittee of such board 
for a ruling, which ruling shall have the same force and effect as the original 
award; and if any member of the original board is unable or unwilling to servo 
another arbitrator shall be named in the same manner as such original member 
w. - named. 

S . 5. That for the purposes of this act the arbitrators herein provided for, 
or either of them, shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations, sign 
subpoenas, require the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production 
of such books, papers, contracts, agreements, and documents material to a just 
determination of the matters under investigation as maybe ordered by thecourl : 
and may invoice the aid of the United States courts to compel witnesses to 
attend and testify and to produce such books, papers, contracts, agreements, and 
documents to the same extent and under the same conditions and penalties as is 
provided for in the act to regulate commerce, approved February fourth, eight- 
een hundred and eighty-seven, and the amendments thereto. 

. <;. That every agreement of arbitration under this act shall be acknowl- 

by the panics thereto before a notary public or a clerk of the district or 

the circuit court of appeals <^t' the United States, or before a member of the 

Mediation and Conciliation, the members of which are hereby author- 

to take such acknowledgments; and when s<* acknowledged shall be 

delivered to a member of said board or transmitted to said board to be filed 

in its offi 

When such agreement of arbitration has been filed with the said board, or 
>f its members, and when the said board, or a member thereof, has been 
furnished the names of the arbitrators chosen by the respective parties to the 
controversy, the beard, or a member thereof, shall cause a notice in writing to 
served upon the said arbitrators, notifying them of their appointment. 
requesting them to meet promptly to name the remaining arbitrator or arbi- 
ssary to complete the board, and advising them of the period 
within which, as provided in the agreement of arbitration, they are empowered 
ame such arbitrator or arbitrators. 
When the arbitrators selected by the respective parties have agreed upon the 
ining arbitrator or arbitrators they shall notify the Board of Mediation 
and Conciliation; and in the event of their failure to agree upon any or upon 
all of the necessary arbitrators within the period fixed by this act they shall. 
at the expiration of such period, notify the Board of Mediation and Concilia- 
tion of the arbitrators selected, if any. or of their failure to make or to com- 
plete such selection. 

If the parties to an arbitration desire the reconvening of a board to pass 

upon any controversy arising over the meaning or application of an award. 

they shall jointly so notify the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, and shall 

written notice the Question or questions to be submitted to such 

rened board. The Board of Mediation and Conciliation shall thereupon 

promptly communicate with the members of the board of arbitration or a sub- 

eomn such board appointed for such purpose pursuant to the provisions 

of the - ent of arbitration, and arrange for the reconvening of said board 

bcommittee, and shall notify the respective parties to the controversy of 

mo and place ;'t which the board will meet for hearings upon the matters 

- ' mitted to it. 
. 7. That the board of arbitration shall organize and select its own chair- 
man and make all necessary roles for conducting its hearings; but in its award 
or awards the said board shall confine itself to findings or recommendations 
the (pi.- ecifically submitted to it or matters directly bearing 

on. All testimony before said board shall be given under oath or afilrma- 
.ind any member of the board of arbitration Bhall have the power to 
administer oaths or affirmations, it may employ such assistants as may be 

■•';. it shall, whenever practicable, be supplied 
with in any Federal building heated -,<t \\- place of meeting 

any plac< ourn for its deliberations. The b 

•i"ii shall fur - award to the respective parti< 

the original, together with the papers and 

taken at 'he bearings, certified 

d of Mediation and Conciliation, 



14 ARBITBATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES, 

to be filed in its office. The clerk of any court of the United States in which 
awards or other papers or documents have been filed by boards of arbitration 
in accordance with the provisions of the act approved June first, eighteen 
hundred and ninety-eight, providing for mediation and arbitration, is hereby 
authorized to turn over to the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, upon its 
request, such awards, documents, and papers. The United States Commerce 
Court, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Bureau of Labor are 
hereby authorized to turn over to the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, 
upon its request, any papers and documents heretofore filed with them and 
bearing upon mediation or arbitration proceedings held under the provisions 
of said act. 

Sec. 8. That the award, being filed in the clerk's office of a district court of 
the United States as hereinbefore provided, shall go into practical operation, 
and judgment shall be entered thereon accordingly at the expiration of ten days 
from such filing, unless within such ten days either party shall file exceptions 
thereto for matter of law apparent upon the record, in which case said award 
shall go into practical operation and judgment be entered accordingly when such 
exceptions shall have been finally disposed of either by said district court or on 
appeal therefrom. 

At the expiration of ten days from the decision of the district court upon 
exceptions taken to said award as aforesaid judgment shall be entered iu 
accordance with said decision, unless during said ten days either party shall 
appeal therefrom to the circuit court of appeals. In such case only such portion 
of the record shall be transmitted to the appellate court as is necessary to the 
proper understanding and consideration of the questions of law presented by 
said exceptions and to be decided. 

The determination of said circuit court of appeals upon said questions shall 
be final, and, being certified by the clerk thereof to said district court, judgment 
pursuant thereto shall thereupon be entered by said district court. 

If exceptions to an award are finally sustained, judgment shall be entered 
setting aside the award in whole or in part; but in such case the parties may 
agree upon a judgment to be entered disposing of the subject matter of the con- 
troversy, which judgment when entered shall have the same force and effect as 
judgment entered upon an award. 

Sec. 9. That whenever receivers appointed by a Federal court are in the pos- 
session and control of the business of employees covered by this act the em- 
ployees of such employers shall have the right to be heard through their repre- 
sentatives in such court upon all questions affecting the terms and conditions 
of their employment ; and no reduction of wages shall be made by such receivers 
without the authority of the court therefor, after notice to such employees, said 
notice to be given not less than twenty days before the hearing upon the 
receivers' petition or application, and to be posted upon all customary bulletin 
boards along or upon the railway or in the customary places on the premises of 
other employers covered by this act. 

Sec. 10. That each member of the board of arbitration created under the pro- 
visions of this act shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by the 
Board of Mediation and Conciliation, together with his traveling and other 
necessary expenses. The sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, is hereby appropriated, to be immediately available and to continue avail- 
able until the close of the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred 
and fourteen, for the necessary and proper expenses incurred in connection 
with any arbitration or with the carrying on of the work of mediation and 
conciliation, including per diem, traveling, and other necessary expenses of 
members or employees of boards of arbitration and rent in the District of 
Columbia, furniture, office fixtures and supplies, books, salaries, traveling ex- 
penses, and other necessary expenses of members or employees of the Board of 
Mediation and Conciliation, to be approved by the chairman of said board and 
audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury. 

Sec 11. There shall be a Commissioner of Mediation and Conciliation, who 
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, and whose salary shall be $7,500 per annum, who shall hold his office 
for a term of seven years, and until a successor qualifies, and who shall be 
removable by the President only for misconduct in office. The President shall 
also designate not more than two other officials of the Government who have 
been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the 
officials thus designated, together with the Commissioner of Mediation and 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 15 

Conciliation, shall constitute a board to be known as the United States Board 
of Mediation and Conciliation. 

Present: Senators Newlands (chairman). Smith of South Caro- 
lina. Pomerene, Robinson. Saulsbury. Thompson, Clapp, Cummins, 
Brandegee. Lippitt. and Townsend. 

The following members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives were also present : Messrs. Clayton (chair- 
man). Webb. Floyd, McCoy, Beall, Fitzhenry. and Morgan. 

Also present: lion. Seth Low. president the National Civic Feder- 
ation: Judge Martin A. Knapp, United States Commerce Court; 
Dr. Charles P. Neill : A. B. Garretson. president Order of Railway 
Conductors: W. S. Stone, grand chief International Brotherhood of 
Locomotive Engineers: W. S. Carter, president Brotherhood Loco- 
motive Firemen and Enginemen: and H. E. Wills, assistant grand 
chief International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Gentlemen, I 
will state that the purpose of this meeting is to consider a bill intro- 
duced by myself. Senate bill *2ol7, providing for mediation, concilia- 
tion, and arbitration in controversies between certain employers and 
their employees. 

This bill is an enlargement and extension of the Erdman Act, an 
act which has had thus far a very happy effect, and is intended to 
extend the beneficence of its operation. 

The bill was drawn by the cooperation of the representatives of the 
various railroad employees' organizations, the prominent officials of 
five or six great railway systems, and a committee of the Civic Fed- 
eration, and the valuable cooperation of Judge Knapp, the chief 
justice of the Commerce Court, and Dr. Neill, the Commissioner of 
Labor, was also secured. 

The committee on draft of proposed changes in the Erdman Me- 
diation Act is as follows: 

William C. Brown, president New York Central Lines: W. S. 
Carter, president Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; 
Ralph M. Easley. chairman executive council the National Civic 
Federation: A. B. Garretson. president Order of Railway Conduc- 
tor-: Hon. Martin A. Knapp. judge United States Commerce Court; 
W. G. Lee. president Brotherhood Railway Trainmen; Robert S. 
Lovett, president Union Pacific Railroad ; Hon. Seth Low, president 
the National Civic Federation: Marcus M. Marks, chairman depart- 
ment on industrial mediation law the National Civic Federation; 
Darius Miller, president Chicago. Burlington & Quincy Railroad; 
Charles P. Neill, former Commissioner Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
United States Department of Labor: H. B. Perham. president 
Brotherhood Railway Telegraphers: Samuel Rea, president Penn- 
sylvania Railroad: Warren 5. Stone, grand chief International 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; Prank Trumbull, chairman 
board of directors Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad and of the Missouri, 
Kansas & Texas Railway: Charles A. Wickersham, president Atlanta 
& West Point Railroad and of the Western Railway of Alabama; 
and Daniel Willard, president Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

I believe this presents your unanimous recommendation, and all 
parties are exceedingly desirous that there should be early action 
upon the bill, particularly in view of the strained relations between 
the employees of the various railroa 1 systems and the railroads, the 






16 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

former claiming that the increased cost of living demands an increase 
in their wages. 

It is, of course, hoped that under this act everything that is need- 
ful and desired will be accomplished by conciliation instead of 
through strikes. 

I have also to state that it was the desire of the representatives of 
the labor organizations, and of Mr. Low, of the Civic Federation, that 
the Judiciary Committee of the House, to which this bill has been 
referred, should sit with the Interstate Commerce Committee of the 
Senate, with a view to hearing those who had information to give 
regarding the purpose of this bill, and Judge Clayton, the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee of the House, has very kindly con- 
sented to bring his committee here and to participate in the hearing. 

I regret to say that since I gave notice of this meeting a notice 
has been given of a Democratic caucus in the Senate, with a view to 
considering the tariff bill, and of course that is a matter of such 
pressing importance that the Democratic members of this committee 
will be compelled to attend it. But the hearings will be taken down 
stenographically and the Senate Members who are unable to be 
present here will of course be able to avail themselves of these hear- 
ings. The members of the Judiciary Committee of the House, I am 
told by Judge Clayton, will have to leave here a little before 1*2 
o'clock. 

Judge Clayton. Yes; as the House will be in session to-day at 
12, and we are compelled to be there. 

Senator Cummins. Do you mean, Mr. Chairman, that all the 
Democratic members of this committee must go to the caucus ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; I am afraid so. And I will state that I have 
asked Senator Simmons whether there would be any break in the 
Democratic caucus to-day, and he tells me that they will be ad- 
journed from 1 o'clock until 3 o'clock, and if you shall not have 
finished your hearing by 12 o'clock and desire the Democratic Mem- 
bers to be here between 1 o'clock and 3 o'clock, we can adjourn the 
meeting until 1 o'clock in order that the Democratic Members may 
be present. If. however, you have finished your hearing by 12 
o'clock, I hardly think it will be necessary to hold a meeting simply 
in order that the Democratic Members may attend, because they can 
read the hearings, and it is not the purpose of the committee to 
take any action now. 

Senator Cummins. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that there is 
this conflict of engagements. I am very sorry to have a matter of 
this importance heard without the presence of the majority members 
of the committee. I suggest that you put it to those who are here 
from abroad whether they would prefer to go on with the hearing 
now without the full committee being present or whether they would 
prefer to come at some other time, at which time the full committee 
could be present. 

The Chairman. I understand from Mr. Low that their committee 
is very desirous of early action. They are desirous that this hearing 
shall be had in order that this bill may be included in the House 
program, which will be determined by the Democratic caucus next 
week, and whilst he is desirous, of course, that all the members of 
both committees shall be present, it is of importance to press the 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 17 

hearing now in order to expedite action in the House. Is that so, 

.Air. Low \ 

Mr. Low. That is so. Mr. Chairman. Of course, we could appear 
before the Judiciary Committee of the House this morning, if that 
is preferred by the Senate committee, and before your committee in 
the afternoon. Some of US could certainly be hen 1 . 

Senator (Y mm ins. I am asking simply that the question be de- 
termined by those who are here from abroad. My observation is 
that if the hearing is of any value, its value is greatly enhanced 
if the members o( the committee hearing it can be present when the 
oral statements arc being made, or the oral arguments are being 
made. Hut it is more difficult to get members of the committee to 
read the hearings than listen to them. 

Mr. Clayton. Suppose, Senator, that we proceed until 12 o'clock, 
anyway, and then we can see the exact condition and if it is desired 
we might postpone the hearing for another day, or conclude it 
to-day. I think we have about an hour and a half that we might 
proceed now. 

The Chairman. I think that would be the best way. 

Senator Cummins. That is satisfactory to me, if it is satisfactory 
to those who desire to be heard. 

Mr. Low. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Low, who will speak first? 

Mr. Low. I will present the first argument. 

The Chairman. I will ask Senator Clapp, the ranking member 
of the minority, to take the chair, as I have to go to attend the 
caucus meeting. 

(The chairman [Senator Xewlands] and Senator Thompson left 
the room. 

Senator Clapp assumed the chair.) 

STATEMENT OF HON. SETH LOW, PRESIDENT THE NATIONAL 

CIVIC FEDERATION. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the two committees, I 
shall try to place before you as briefly as possible why this bill is 
here at all. and then call upon others who are here to explain the bill 
more in detail. Before doing so, I should like to express on behalf 
of all whom I represent our very high appreciation of the courtesy 
of the two committees in giving us this early hearing, and in arrang- 
ing to meet together. \Ve perfectly understand that the unexpected 
call of the Democratic Senate caum< lias disturbed the arrangement 
to some extent, but we are very glad to avail ourselves of the joint 
hearing just as matters are. 

S aator Robinson. T suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the 
importance of this hearing I should like to be present during the 
hearing, and I think at least some members of the majority part of 
the committee ought to have that opportunity. If some arrange- 
ment has been effected with the chairman of the committee I suppose 
I will have to abide it. but otherwise T would suggesi that the com- 
mittor adjourn until some time which will not conflict with the 
Den: caucus. 

aator Clapp. The trouble, Senator, is right here, that a number 
of gentlemen are here from some distance. 
1421— S. Rept. 72. 63-1 2 



18 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

Senator Robinson. As far as that is concerned, Mr. Chairman, 
gentlemen are here from some distance all the time. 

Senator Clapp. But the chairman of this committee, a member of 
the majority party, this morning has made this arrangement. Now, 
if it is not satisfactory to you 

Senator Robinson. I stated that if the chairman of the committee 
had made such an arrangement I would abide it. 

Senator Cummins. I made the suggestion you are now making, 
that it seemed to me that the hearing might be postponed until it 
would not be in conflict with the Democratic caucus. 

Senator Robinson. Mr. Chairman, this is a most unusual pro- 
ceeding. 

Senator Clapp. If the Senator will move to adjourn the chairman 
will entertain the motion. 

Senator Robinson. I move that the committee now adjourn until 
half past 1 o'clock to-day. 

Mr. Low. May I make one suggestion? Would the Senate com- 
mittee be willing to adjourn until half past 1, as Senator Robinson 
suggests ? 

Senator Robinson. I move we adjourn until half past 1 o'clock. 

Mr. Low. May we now have an hour's hearing before the Judiciary 
Committee of the House and then we can conclude that, and then 
some of us can be present this afternoon, if not all of us? 

Senator Clapp. It is moved that the committee adjourn until half 
past 1 o'clock this afternoon. Are you ready for the question? 

Senator Cummias. It is not likely that I can be present at half 
past 1, but that does not make any difference. 

Senator Clapp. Are you ready for the question ? 

Mr. Low. This does not mean the adjournment of the entire com- 
mittee, the House members and all ? 

Senator Clapp. The House committee are simply here by the invi- 
tation of Senator Newlands, and to avoid two hearings they come 
and sit with the Senate committee. Of course, this matter is entirely 
subject to the approval of the committee. 

Senator Robinson. Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to criticize the 
action of the chairman of this committee, but it so happens that I 
am the only member of the majority party of the Senate Committee 
on Interstate Commerce present, and I am compelled to attend the 
Democratic caucus, and it seems to me like it is a very unusual and 
very extraordinary proposition to insist upon having hearings under 
those conditions. 

Senator Cummins. You knew that Senator Newlands and Senator 
Thompson had been here, did you not? 

Senator Robinson. No ; I did not know it. 

Senator Cummins. And that it was Senator Newlands who made 
this arrangement? 

Senator Robinson. I stated in the beginning that if Senator New- 
lands had made such an arrangement I would abide by it, and I will 
withdraw the motion and acquiesce for the time being in the action 
taken. I will have to be excused, hoAvever. 

Senator Clapp. Very well ; the motion is withdrawn. Then let us 
go ahead. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, this bill on which the 
hearing is to be given to-day is in effect an amendment of the Erd- 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 19 

man Act. T assume that the Erdman Act is so familiar to the mem- 
bers of the committee that I need not speak of it in detail. It has 
been on the statute hooks. 1 think, for nearly 15 years. It was upon 
the statute books for several years before it was resorted to at all. 
Under its terms any interstate railroad or any of its employees could 
apply originally to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission and the Commissioner of Labor to serve as mediators, to try 
to bring both the railroads and their emplo} 7 ees together when ques- 
tions were in dispute. 

Judge Knapp, who was then the chairman of the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, displayed such great skill in connection with these 
matters that when he was made chief justice of the Commerce Court 
the Erdman law as originally passed was amended so as to consti- 
tute the chief justice of the Commerce Court and the Commissioner 
of Labor the mediators under the Erdman Act. 

When the Department of Labor was created hist year the old office 
of Commissioner of Labor, which had been in the old Department of 
Commerce and Labor, was assigned to the Department of Labor and 
he was given the title of Commissioner of Labor Statistics, and all 
the authority vested in the Commissioner of Labor under the Erdman 
Act was transferred to that office. 

That is the status of the law to-day as it relates to questions of 
mediation. 

Those gentlemen as mediators responded to the call either of a 
railroad or of its employees when a dispute was growing up, and 
by conference with both parties tried to bring about an adjustment. 
That business has been carried on so successfully that the duty of 
those two gentlemen has become almost continuous — certainly the 
Commissioner of Labor has had to go first to one extreme of the 
country and then to the other to discharge the most important duty, 
and by the discharge of that duty — a successful discharge of it — an 
immense number of railroad strikes, large and small, have been 
avoided. 

Those two gentlemen had another office. Under the Erdman Act 
legislative sanction is given for arbitration between these parties 
if mediation fails. The general scheme provided for arbitration is 
thai each party shall name one arbitrator, and if they fail to agree 
upon the third, whom they may name if they can agree, then these 
two conciliators representing the Government shall name the third 
arbitrator. 

That is the status of the Erdman Act to-day as it relates to arbi- 
tration. The mediation feature of the law was appealed to by one 
side or the other for several years before there was any arbitration at 
all under the Erdman Act. Latterly more arbitrations have been 
held than formerly under that act. Originally these disputes were 
most frequently between some one railroad brotherhood, representing 
some branch of the operating employees of trains, and a -ingle rail- 
road. Latterly', in the development of things in our day. these arbi- 
tration- have become arbitrations not between one brotherhood and 
one railroad but between a brotherhood and Large groups of railroads. 

About ;i year ago the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers made 

in demand- upon the railroads of the eastern part of the United 

State — some 54 in number, as I recall — and both side- were willing 

to arbitrate. The railroads pointed out that it was quite unreasonable 



20 ARBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

to submit a controversy involving 54 roads to the determination of 
practically one man. The locomotive engineers, in effect, assented 
to the justice of that criticism, and therefore voluntarily agreed to 
arbitrate under a system provided, but, on that particular occasion, 
without any sanction of law behind it. The result was, as I remem- 
ber, a board of seven, one representing the railroads and one the 
locomotive engineers and five not connected with either. The results 
of that arbitration were so unfortunate, from the point of view of the 
locomotive engineers, and so unfortunate from the point of view of all 
the other members, that it has brought about the situation which 
this bill endeavors to deal with. The locomotive engineers have not 
criticized, so far as I know, the definite findings on the questions 
referred to that arbitration, but they do feel that the arbitrators 
went far outside of the questions which were submitted to them for 
arbitration. They feel, whether justly or not I do not undertake to 
say, that more time was consumed in the arbitration than was 
necessary, to the great disadvantage of all the interests concerned. 
At any rate, after that arbitration not a single railroad brother- 
hood was willing to arbitrate in that voluntary fashion. 

The next demands which came upon this same group of railroads 
came from the Brotherhood of Firemen and Enginemen, and they 
said they would arbitrate under the Erdman law as it stood, but 
they wished to arbitrate under the sanction of law so that witnesses 
could be sworn and so that the arbitrators could be kept within the 
limits of the subject submitted for arbitration. The railroads ob- 
jected on the same ground as before to arbitrating before so small a 
board. I think I am entirely within bounds in saying that the fire- 
men would have been willing to arbitrate before a larger board, but 
they were not willing to arbitrate except under the sanction of law, 
and the only board provided by sanction of law for that purpose 
was a board of three. That arbitration was held and it resulted in 
a unanimous award. 

Soon afterwards the Brotherhood of Conductors, the Order of 
Railway Conductors, and the Brotherhood of Trainmen made cor- 
responding demands for increase of wages and other subjects upon 
this same group of roads. Both of these other arbitrations, I may 
say, resulted in a substantial increase of wages. The same group of 
roads therefore find themselves confronted to-day with the same 
problem that met them when the engineers asked for certain modifi- 
cations of their agreement, and with the same problem that con- 
fronted them when the firemen asked for their agreement. I think 
that this bill, drawn as it is, shows that the employees of the rail- 
roads feel, as the railroads do, that when a group of railroads are 
involved in a controversy there ought to be a larger board of arbitra- 
tion than three. The conductors and trainmen's demands were 
refused by the railroads, and both of these brotherhoods are now 
taking strike votes which are returnable on the 1st of July. 

This bill is supported by all of the brotherhoods and by such rep- 
resentative railroads in the United States as the Pennsylvania, the 
New York Central, the Union Pacific, the Baltimore & Ohio, the 
Atlanta & West Point, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the Chicago, 
Burlington & Quincy, and others, so that we are justified in believing 
that the other railroad systems of the United States will also accept 
this bill. In other words, gentlemen, this is a measure which comes 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 21 

before you not as representing a, dispute between employers and 
employees but as representing the unanimous support of the great 

interstate railroad systems and all of the railroad brotherhoods for 
the amendment of the Erdman Art so as to provide lor a board of 
six arbitrators instead of a board of three. 

This bill as drawn makes it optional to have a board of three or of 
six. I think both >ides believe that where the controversy is between 
a single brotherhood and one railroad a board of three is better than 
a Larger one. but where the controversy involves a whole group of 
railroads, covering an entire region of the United States, then the 
board ought to be larger. 

Senator Cummins. May I ask a question? 

Mr. Low. Certainly. Senator. 

Senator Ci mmins. I will say that one of the difficulties of the 
present law — I do not mean the present law, but the practice under 
the present law— is that the board of arbitrators appointed recently, 
consisting of seven persons, passed beyond the scope and beyond the 
questions submitted to them and made findings on outside matters. 
What is there in this bill that would prevent the board of arbitrators 
selected here from doing the same thing? 

Mr. Low. That board of arbitrators was a voluntary board. That 
arbitration was not held under the sanction of law. This bill, in sec- 
tion 7. reads: 

That the board of arbitration shall organize and select its own chairman and 
make all necessary rules for conducting its hearings; but in its award or 
awards the aaid board shall confine itself to findings or recommendations as to 
the questions specifically submitted to it or matters directly bearing thereon. 

Senator Cummins. I know that: but I assume that board to which 
you referred proceeded under a written agreement of arbitration 
which did define the subject. Now, if the board appointed here 
should pass beyond that there would be no way to prevent it, would 
there? I do not know any way. however, by which the finding of 
such a board could be enforced by law. 

Mr. Low. I think it has been enforced. Senator, under the Erd- 
man Act a- it now stands. There was a case in California, if I re- 
member correctly. Some of the gentlemen here could answer much 
more to the point than I. That was a case in which an appeal was 
made. I think, by the brotherhood against the finding on substan- 
tially this ground — that it went outside. Am I not right? 

Mr. \kill. Yes. 

Mr. L<>w. They went outside the question that was submitted. 

S nator Cummins. What I mean is any award of a board of arbi- 
tration, for instance, in regard to wages. How could it be enforced? 

Mr. Low. That is the beauty of this whole Erdman Act, and this 
bill differs in no respect from the original act as to that. Both sides 
e to accept the arbitration before it begins. 

Senator Cummins. Certainly. But what I mean to say is that 
there is no process of law by which either side could be compelled 
to do the things that the board found ought to have been done, is 
there? 

Mr. Low. No; the sole reliance is upon voluntary arbitration. 

S nator Cl MMINS. I rtainlv: I wanted to make that point per- 
fect lv clear. 



22 ARBPIKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Senator Robinson. Do you not think the provisions on pages 11 and 
12, and subsequent provisions, that if the board did exceed its juris- 
diction and undertook to r>ass upon questions that were not properly 
submitted, that by the filing of exceptions, and prosecuting the rem- 
edy provided in this bill, a court could finally be had to pass upon the 
question and determine whether or not the board had exceeded its 
jurisdiction? That relates to the question formerly asked you by 
Senator Cummins as to what remedy could be invoked if the board 
did, in spite of the limitation of the bill, undertake to pass upon 
some subject that was not submitted to it. I see here that there is a 
provision for making exceptions to the award and submitting that 
question to the court, and the court making the decision upon it. 
I presume that would be sufficient to confine the board to a considera- 
tion of proper subjects. 

Mr. Low. That is the intention; yes. The essential thing is to 
have the sanction of law for these arbitrations. It is quite clear 
that these great problems can not be worked out by voluntary arbitra- 
tion, including a voluntary board, because such a board has no right 
to swear witnesses. 

Senator Robinson. As I understand you, Mr. Low, one of the dis- 
tinctive differences between existing law and the proposed law is 
that this bill contemplates under some conditions an increase in the 
board to six, and does give the sanction of law to the arbitration. 
Can you state other material amendments of the Erdman Act that 
are carried in this bill — or changes ? 

Mr. Low. I think the only other amendment that is substantial is 
that it provides for the appointment by the President of a commis- 
sioner of mediation and arbitration and of an assistant commissioner, 
those two officers to take the place, to perform the duties now devolv- 
ing upon the chief justice of the Commerce Court and upon the 
Commissioner of Labor. 

The reason for that amendment in the main is that this business of 
mediation has become so great, so continuous, so extensive, and the 
country is so large that it is the opinion of both Judge Knapp and 
Mr. Neill, who are here to-day, and who suggested that change, that 
it is necessary, if the bill is to fulfill its perfect work, that there 
should be officers appointed by the President with no other duty to 
attend than that. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that, if I had 
sufficiently outlined the general scope and purpose of the bill, I would 
be very glad if I might call on Judge Knapp and Dr. Neill to discuss 
these details. 

Senator Clapp. Judge Clayton, do you or the other members of 
your committee desire to ask any questions? 

Mr. Clayton. The members of the House committee, most of us, 
have had some conferences with Mr. Low and other members in sup- 
port of this measure, and we knew a good deal about this measure 
before this hearing was had this morning. 

Senator Cummins. Mr. Low, what was your purpose in making 
six the number instead of an odd number ? 

Mr. Low. Because that was the only number upon which we could 
get unanimous agreement. Or we could get an agreement on three, 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 23 

Senator Ci mmins. It would be unfortunate in such a case if there 
was an even division upon any controverted matter. I was wondering 
whether you had given it your consideration. 

Mr. Low. Yes; we had. Senator. We do not think that danger is 
a wry great one. I pointed out in a public statement about the bill 
that in the Alaskan controversy both England and the United States 
were represented by equal numbers, but it did not prevent a settle- 
ment of that question. 

(The chairman [Senator Newlands] entered the room.) 

The Chairman. May I interrupt? I will state that an arrange- 
ment has been made by the Democratic caucus for a recess, so that 
the Democratic members of this committee can be here at 2 o'clock 
this afternoon. 

.Mr. Clayton, Mr. Low, right in that connection, the board being 
composed of six arbitrators, and where there is an equal division on 
any controverted question would it not be well to provide for the 
appointment of an umpire, to be the seventh man or the umpire in 
case there was an equal division? 

Mr. Low. Gentlemen, of course that suggestion has occurred to 
those who drew the bill. The fact is that we could get an agreement 
on six and we could not get an agreement on seven. 

Senator Ctmmlxs. Is there any significance in having the even 
number? Has that been a subject of discussion among you; and if 
there is any significance in it. what is the significance? 

Mr. Low. In so far as I know the only significance is that those 
who are interested in the passage of this bill, who are connected with 
the railroads and the brotherhoods, have agreed that the railroads 
and the brotherhoods and the general public would have the same 
representation. 

That, from their point of view, is necessary to make the arbitration 
fair. 

Senator Robixsox. So it would have to be three, six. or nine, or 
some such ratio as that? 

Mr. Low. Yes. 

Senator Cummins. The provision is if you have three, the inter- 
ested parties select one each, and the two thus selected choose an- 
other. Why could you not have the same provision with regard to 
six. making it seven, having the interested parties select the three 
eaeh and the six seleet another? 

Mr. Low. It is perfectly practicable, and perhaps I ought to leave 
the discussion of that question to the railroads and the engineers; 
but that, you perceive. Senator, would bring about the decision of 
these great questions by one man. being an umpire, and that is what 
is thought to be so unfortunate. The belief is that if the board is 
made up of six. every deci-ion will be by 4 to 2. unless it is unani- 
mous, or 5 to 1. which would carry much more moral weight with the 
community than a decision of 4 to .">. 

Of course, it i- possible under this system that there would bo no 
decision after a long arbitration, but we think that is so slight a 
ger that it is very much better to pass ;i bill that is perfectly 
satisfactory to those who have got to work under it than to pa 
bill that they may not be willing to accept 



24 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Senator Cummins. I did not know that there had been any discus- 
sion about it. I did not see the significance of it until now. I see it 
now. 

Mr. Low. There has been a discussion of it, and there is a differ- 
ence of opinion. There was at the beginning. I think I may say 
that there was a difference of. opinion on both sides. Some railroad 
men — not connected with the committee, I think — prefer 2 and 2, 
while others much prefer 2 and 3. 

Senator Cummins. Do you not think this same principle ought to 
be extended to other instances of controversies between employers 
and employees ? Why confine it to the railroads ? 

Mr. Low. Senator, of course, all arbitration to be worth anything 
must be voluntary. Therefore the system that is to work at all must 
be a system that is satisfactory to those who are going to arbitrate 
under it. and in many cases they have had by choice these boards of 
even numbers. They are unwilling to submit it to an odd man. 

Senator Cummins. I am not speaking of the number, but I am 
speaking of the general scope of the bill. It is confined to contro- 
versies between common carriers and their employees. Now, why 
should not the same principle be extended to other industries that 
are doing an interstate business? 

Mr. Low. There is no objection whatever on the part of those pre- 
senting this bill to that being done. Our attitude has been that they 
would try to suggest amendments to the Congress that would enable 
arbitrations of this great industry to go forward under the sanction 
of law without its involving questions as to other industries that 
might not want to come under that system. But it is perfectly under- 
stood that if any body of men does want to come under it, they 
are most willing; they have no desire to limit it, although the Erd- 
man Act is limited, and therefore this law is limited just as the Erd- 
man law. 

Senator Brandegee. I wanted to ask Mr. Low one question before 
he took his seat. What is the history of the awards under the Erdman 
Act as to the compliance with the award by the parties to the arbi- 
tration ? 

Mr. Low. There has never been a breach. You can not compel 
them to arbitrate unless they are willing and satisfied with the terms 
of the arbitration. 

Might I, just before I sit down, emphasize the urgent character of 
this situation? If we can have this law, I think you can look for- 
ward to industrial peace, so far as the railroads are concerned, in the 
near future without doubt. If you do not have it, I can not say what 
Iboth sides will do ; but there are two strike votes being taken now, and 
unless we can have this law in force in the very near future we may 
be confronted with railroad disturbances on a scale which this coun- 
try has seldom seen ; and that is our excuse, gentlemen, for asking for 
this early hearing and for pressing the question of urgency on both 
Houses. 

Senator Brandegee. How soon do you think these disturbances 
will take place ? 

Mr. Low. I think in a few months the trouble will break out. I am 
Informed that it will be very soon after the 1st of July unless this bill 
is passed. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS A.ND EMPLOYEES, 25 

Mr. FitzHenry. How would this passage of this law tend to do 
away with troubles which are now threatened \ 

Mr. Low. Because the railroads and the brotherhoods representing 
their employees are both willing to arbitrate under this Law. 

Mr. FitzHenry. Is there anything to prevent them from arbitrat- 
ing under the provisions of this act, whether it is passed or not? 

Mr. Low. Only that they are not willing to. It* it is not passed, 
there is no sanction of law for the arbitration. 'They can not swear 
their witnesses. They have got none of the protection as to the 
award which this act offers. They could, of course, use the Erdman 
Act just as it i<. but that is exactly what the railroads are unwilling 
to do. They have yielded as to the firemen, and I should like to point 
out that ali of the railroad employees share the feeling of the rail- 
roads themselves, that when these controversies involve a whole re- 
gion of the United States it is not reasonable to leave the decision to 
one man. 

Mr. Clayton. The objection to proceeding under the Erdman Act 
is that the board of arbitration is too small, is without adequate 
power, can not swear the witnesses, and therefore you think the parties 
to the controversy, in the event of a railroad strike, would not act 
under the Erdman Act, and therefore you appeal to Congress to pass 
this act which enlarges the Erdman law? 

Mr. Low. That is substantially it, Mr. Chairman. Under the Erd- 
man Act a witness can not be sworn, and they can not be sworn under 
a voluntary arbitration. If the board were larger than the number 
provided under the Erdman Act 

Mr. Dyer. Would you state to the committee, before you take your 
seat, what the sentiment is among the different organizations and the 
public generally before whom you have brought this question? 

Mr. Low. I think it is unanimously, as far as I am informed, in 
favor of this action. 

Mr. Dyer. To what extent have you taken it up with boards of 
trade or civic organizations generally throughout the country? 

Mr. Low. There has been no time to take it up in a large way 
with civic organizations, because this situation is brought to a head 
by demands submitted only this spring. But I think it may be 
taken for granted that the general public will be pleased with this 
bill. 

Mr. Dyer. There is no opposition to it anywhere? 

Mr. Low. None that we have heard of. 

Senator Robinson. Of course the failure to assert opposition often 
arises from lack of knowledge on the part of the public as to what is 
involved. Now, I think it is a fair question, inasmuch as the state- 
ment is made that all the railroads of the country and the labor or- 
ganizations affected have agreed upon it, to ask what action has been 
taken by them as indicating that agreement or whether it is assumed 
by their representatives that they do agree. How do we know that 
they have agreed \ 

Mr. Low. A- far ;i~ the railroads are concerned, they have taken no 
formal action, but these gentlemen were represented in the confer- 
ence that prepared the bill and which i> now supporting the bill, 
namely: William ('. Brown, president of the New York Central 
lines: Robert S. Lovett, president Union Pacific Railroad; Darius 



26 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Miller, president Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Kailroad; Samuel 
Rea, president Pennsylvania Eailroad; Frank Trumbull, chairman 
board of directors, Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad; and Charles A. 
Wickersham, president Atlanta & West Point Railroad and also 
of the Eastern Railroad of Alabama ; and Daniel Willard, president 
of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. 

I think that, so far as official action can speak for the railroads, 
gentlemen will realize that the railroads of the United States are 
likely to suj)port that action. 

So far as the brotherhoods are concerned, Mr. W. S. Carter, presi- 
dent of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, and 
A. B. Garretson, president of the Order of Railway Conductors, have 
agreed to support the bill and are present, and Mr. W. G. Lee, 
president of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, agrees to sup- 
port the bill, but is unable to be here. He has been in San Francisco 
and was unable to be here, but he has given his proxy to Mr. Stone 
and Mr. Garretson. Then there is Mr. H. B. Perham, president of 
the Brotherhood of Railway Telegraphers, who supports the bill, and 
Mr. Warren S. Stone, grand chief International Brotherhood of Lo- 
comotive Engineers, is also present. 

Senator Robinson. So that representatives of practically all the 
organizations are here? 

Mr. Low. Yes; all the organizations that are affected by the rail- 
roads are behind this, and at least three of their representatives are 
here to-day to speak for it and answer questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN A. KNAPP, CHIEF JUSTICE UNITED 
STATES COMMERCE COURT. 

Judge Knapp. Mr. Chairman and gentleman, the scope and aim 
of this measure are practically identical with the scope and aim of the 
present law. It differs only in the machinery for making the pur- 
poses effective. Mr. Low has explained the reasons for changing the 
number of arbitrators when a controversy can not be settled by 
mediation, and it is upon this phase of the bill that it is intended to 
provide for what may be called two classes of cases, one being a con 
troversy, if you please, between one organization and some road, 
which may not be an extensive one, where to have a board of six 
would involve greater expense both to the parties and to the Gov- 
ernment than the nature of the controversy would seem to require, 
and then to provide for this larger board for the settlement of those 
controversies which take in thousands of employees and large groups 
of railroads. 

In place of those who are now made mediators under the present 
law it is proposed to substitute a board of mediation and conciliation 
and to appoint an official, called here a commissioner of mediation 
and conciliation, who shall give his entire time to the work con- 
templated by this bill, with an assistant, who, of course, will be a 
member of this board, and that there shall be appointed by the 
President two other officials already holding office of such a grade 
and dignity as would have been nominated by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate, who, together with the commissioner, shall 
constitute this board. And these other officials may be called in 
and cooperate with the commissioner in carrying on the work of 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS A.XP EMPLOYEES. 2? 

mediation in any case where it is found necessary or desirable. 
When it comes to the appointment of arbitrators, that appointment 
will be made by the hoard. 

It already appears from what Mr. Low has said that it seems 
there arc two general things quite obvious that create a strong 
presumption in favor of the desirability of an early adoption ot 
this measure. First, that it has been unanimously agreed upon and 
i- earnestly supported by those who are directly interested in the 
practice of such a law and in its administration, but to me it is 
a very significant and a very encouraging fact that the representa- 
tive- of the fi\e great railroad labor organizations and the repre- 
sentatives of the great railroad sy>tems of the United States have 
come to au agreement as to the law which shall be passed for the 
purpose of preventing strikes and in case of need bringing the 
controversies which may arise to possible settlement. 

The second thing is that this measure represents the composite 
judgment of those who have given the most careful stud} 7 to a law of 
this character and whose views expressed in this measure are the 
result of long experience and careful reflection. 

Those, in the main, are all the things which it would seem to be 
necessary to say — certainly as a preliminary statement. One could 
talk about this bill indefinitely: its purposes; could refer to what has 
been accomplished under a law which experience shows lacks suit- 
able machinery for dealing with modern conditions. That is all. 

A- Mr. Low says, when this law was passed in 1898, the typical,, 
the usual, controversy was between a single organization and a 
-ingle railroad. The provisions both for mediation and arbitration 
were well suited for controversies of that nature. To-day the char- 
acteristic form in which these controversies arise is by what is called 
concerted movements — the employees in a given organization and 
mayl>e in two or three more organizations in the employ of very 
large groups of railroads unite in a common demand and take up 
nt'irotiations with the managers of the railroads throughout an entire 
section. 

Roughly speaking. Mr. Chairman, at the present time for purposes 
of this kind the country is divided into three sections, the territory 
north of the Ohio and Potomac and east of Chicago, practically 
what is called the trunk-line territory; the territory south of the 
Potomac and east of the Mississippi: and the territory west of 
Chicago. In all of those sections concerted movements of this kind 
have taken place within the last three years, and as we saw it. we 
who have been in touch with it. that is expected to be the charac- 
uc form in which these controversies will arise in the future. 
That presents a condition thai was not contemplated 18 years ago, 
when this law was passed, and it is because it will so change the 
machinery a- to make it adequate and suitable for dealing with exist* 
conditions and those which may be anticipated that the parties 
directly interested have agreed upon this substitute measure. 

I do not think I will take the time of the committee with a speech. 
If there are any questions you would like to ask me. I -hall be vi'iy 
glad to answer them. 

Mr. Clayton. Judge Knapp, may 1 ask yon this question: How 
often have you served in the capacity a- mediator in matters of dis- 
pute arising between the railroads and their employees? 



28 ARBITBATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Judge Knapp. Judge Clayton, I could not say offhand exactly 
how many I have personally participated in, but I should say at 
least 40. 

Mr. Clayton. Covering a period of how many years ? 

Judge Knapp. Beginning actively in the fall of 1906, a period of 
somewhat less than seven years. 

Mr. Clayton. And your service in that capacity has brought 
you to the conclusion that this bill is not only proper but it is neces- 
sary to make effective the effort of arbitration of differences between 
the railroads and their employees ? 

Judge Knapp. That is my judgment, Judge Clayton. 

Mr. Dyer. Supplementing the judge's question, Judge Knapp, 
you also believe that with the condition as you see it in the industrial 
World at the present time, in the railroad business, this act should be 
amended at once, do you not, or at this session of Congress ? 

Judge Knapp. I think it may be called almost an emergency. 
As Mr. Low has explained — just let us consider the situation — the 
one that confronted all this part of the country, and the great 
organization of locomotive engineers two years ago, when they 
asked, and not without reason, for an increase in pay and better- 
ment of working conditions. The railroads said it is not fair to 
either side to leave a controversy involving tens of thousands of men 
and millions of dollars a year to the determination of one man, who 
is to be selected by the two mediators, who may prove, however 
carefully chosen, either incompetent to deal with a controversy of 
that magnitude or who may do great injustice to one side or the 
other. 

I think I am quite warranted in saying, Mr. Chairman — I am 
quite willing to say in this presence — that it is very creditable to the 
order of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers that they recognized 
that situation and consented to what was in legal effect a common- 
law arbitration with five umpires, with a result which, of course, 
Was to them very unsatisfactory. And that explains in a way why 
When the next controversy arose with the firemen they insisted that 
if there was arbitration at all it should be under the law which 
they were prepared to obey. 

Senator Cummins. You have just said that the decision of one 
man upon so vast a matter is hardly reliable, or, at least, it might be 
full of danger. I think I catch now what I did not gather before — ■ 
the real spirit of this section. The idea is that when an arbitration 
board of six is provided for it should be two from the employers and 
two from the employees, the four thus selected to choose two more 
by a majorty vote; and I assume that it is expected that of the 
two more there shall be one on the side of the employers and one 
on the side of the employees, or is it expected that these two shall 
be entirely removed or disassociated from either side of the 
controversy ? 

Judge Knapp. I think, Senator, the law contemplates that they 
should be impartial, and it certainly would be the duty of the 
appointing power, in case the representatives of the contending par- 
ties did not agree upon the other two, to fill up the board with dis- 
interested men. 

Senator Cummins. I assume they are agreed upon by the four 
members of the board originally named, and then you would have 






ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 29 

the judgment of two men instead of the judgment of one. That is 
really the thought you are trying to reach ? . 

Judge Knapp. Yes; thai is it exactly. 

Senator Cummins. I wish to ask a legal question or two — 

Judge Knapp. If you will pardon me, let me say another word or 
two on that point in answer to questions that were asked when Mr, 
Low was addressing the committee, On the face of it it looks like a 
contradiction of' arbitration to have an even number, because the very 
idea of an arbitration is to submit the controversy voluntarily to an 
umpire, and theoretically, of course, it is quite possible that in a large 
dispute there might be a deadlock. Practically I do not think that 
would occur, because all the parties — the representatives of the rail- 
road-, the representatives of the employees, as well as the other two 
member-, would recognize the necessity of bringing that controversy 
t<> a settlement, and the pressure of that necessity would lead to such 
compromises as would insure an award. And I may say that I think 
it is a plan which is likely to work out conservative results. Per- 
sonally I rather incline to the two, two and two, as against the two, 
two and three. 

Senator Cummins. In the eleventh paragraph of section 4 — I will 
not read the entire paragraph — it is provided that — 

* * * The award * * * shall be filed in the clerk's office of the district 
court of the United States for the district wherein the controversy arises or the 
arbitration is entered into, and shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to 
the agreement unless set aside for error of law apparent on the record. 

Judge Knapp. That is copied from the present law, Senator, sub- 
stituting only " district court " for " circuit court." 

Senator Cummins. I know; but what is really meant by saying 
that it shall be " final and conclusive," especially in connection with 
section 8. I believe, in which it is provided that there shall be a judg- 
ment of the court upon the award? What would be done to enforce 
the award after it is filed in the court? 

Judge Knapp. Practically nothing. 

Senator Cummins. And judgment was entered upon it? 

Judge Knapp. So far as I am concerned, I would be quite willing 
to leave out all those provisions. I was in favor of a bill, personally, 
which contained no provisions for review by courts at all. 

Senator Cummins. I was thinking, suppose the award should be 
that the railroad company should pay to its employees of a certain 
class $100 a month, would that be binding upon the railroad com- 
pany or upon the employees for all time? 

Judge Knapp. Not by any means. 

Senator Cummins. Then you would expect the award to fix a time 
during which that wage should be paid? 

Judge Knapp. That is provided in the bill. That is a part of the 
agreement to arbitrate. 

nator Cummins. That is. that the award itself shall .fix the time 
during which the condition should prevail that was complained of, 
or during which the wain' should be paid i 

Judge Knapp. Yes; that is right 

Senator Cummins. And then if the employees should refuse to 
work for that wage it could not be enforced on them? 

Judge Knapp. Surely not. 



^0 ARBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Senator Cummins. And if the railroad company should refuse to 
pay it could not be enforced against the railroad company? 

Judge Knapp. No ; perhaps not. 

Senator Cummins. I was a little curious about it. You have had 
& great deal of experience on that. 

Judge Knapp. Let me say — I venture to say that the man who 
has not been somewhat in touch with these questions does not appre- 
ciate the sense of honor of these organizations and of the railway 
managers. 

Senator Cummins. I understand perfectly, but I was limiting my 
question to the effect of a judgment of a court in the matter. 

Senator Robinson. May I make a suggestion, Senator? As I 
read it, this filing of the testimony constitutes a bill of exceptions, 
for on that record a judgment is entered. It is analogous to a pro- 
ceeding in court where the testimony has been heard, the issue sub- 
mitted, the findings of the jury made, and the judgment entered by 
the court. It may be true that in this particular case there is no 
authority for the enforcement of that judgment. That probably is 
true. But at the same time it has the moral effect of a conclusion of 
the proceeding, unless it be found on the face of that record that an 
error of law was committed, in which event relief may be had by an 
appeal. 

Senator Cummins. That is just the point that I had in mind. This 
practically, then, provides for an appeal from the award of the 
arbitrators to a district court of the United States? 

Senator Robinson. Only on a question of law. 

Senator Cummins. On everything? 

Senator Robinson. No. When that record is filed according to the 
plain language of the bill in paragraph 11, page 6, it constitutes a 
bill of exceptions. From an examination of that bill of exceptions 
errors of law may appear, as when a case is tried in court, and those 
errors of law may be appealed from, and it seems to me very prop- 
erly so. 

Senator Cummins. I understand, but errors of law very often 
involve a finding upon the facts made by the board. We have dis- 
covered that in a great many of our provisions of the law, generally 
with regard to review by the courts in administrative proceedings. 
I do not intend to argue it, but I just wanted to ask the judge what 
he had in mind. 

Judge Knapp. Those are all provisions which were incorporated 
in the law when it was passed in 1898, and have remained there ever 
since, and it seemed on the whole wise to retain them. 

Senator Cummins. I know they are in the present law, but I have 
•always been rather afraid that you were eventually going to convert 
the courts of the United States into the arbitrators of labor contro- 
versies, and I have never had much sympathy with that idea. 

Judge Knapp. I would like to say in that connection, Senator, that 
I have never known an instance where the defeated^ and dissatisfied 
party to an award did not promptly comply with it in good faith 
during the period it was in force. 

Senator Cummins. I am not questioning that at all. 

Judge Knapp. I do not regard these provisions of any practical 
importance at all. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 31 

Senator Cummins. But when we are making a law we ought to 

make it expectant that all these provisions will he appealed to from 
time to time. 

Senator Brandegee. Mr. Chairman, I am not very familiar with 
the Erdman Act. and I will therefore ask that it be printed in the 
record as a part of this hearing. 

Senator Olapp. It will be bo ordered. 

(The Erdman Act is as follows:) 

an act Concerning carriers engaged in Interstate commerce ami their employees. 

it ciia<-{(<! by the Senate mid House of Representatives of the United States 
<>f \iiii rica in Congress assembled, That the provisions of this net shall apply to 
any common carrier or carriers and their officers, agents, and employees, except 
masters of vessels and seamen, as defined in section forty-six hundred and 
twelve. Revised Statutes of the United States, engaged in the transportation of 
passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly hy railroad and partly by 
water, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the 
United Sto tes, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the 
United S'ato<. or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United 
States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States 
through a foreign country to any other place in the United States. 

The term M railroad" as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries 
■Bed or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use by 
any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a con- 
tract, Rgreement, or lease: and the term "transportation" shall include all in- 
strumentalities of shipment or carriage. 

The term "employees" as used in this act shall include all persons actually en- 
gaged in any capacity in train operation or train service of any description, and 
notwithstanding that the cars upon or in which they are employed may be held 
and operated by the carrier under lease or other contract : Provided, however, That 
this act shall not he held to apply to employees of street railroads and shall apply 
only to employees engaged in railroad train service. In every such case the car- 
rier shall be resi>onsible for the .nets and defaults of such employees in the same 
manner and to the same extent as if said cars were owned by it and said em- 
ployees directly employed by it. and any provisions to the contrary of any such 
lease or other contract shall be binding only as between the parties thereto and 
shaii not affect the obligations of said carrier either to the public or to the pri- 
vate parties concerned. 

9 . 2. That whenever a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor, or 
conditions of employment shall arise between a carrier subject to this act and 
the employees of such carrier, seriously interrupting or threatening to interrupt 
the business of Bald carrier, the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion and the Commissioner of Labor shall, upon the request of either party to 
the controversy, with all practicable expedition, put themselves in communica- 
tion with the parties to such controversy, and shall use their best efforts, by 
mediation and conciliation, to amicably settle the same; and if such efforts 
Bhall bo unsuccessful, shall at once endeavor to bring about an arbitration of 
said controversy in accordance with the provisions of this act. 

. 3. That whenever a controversy shall arise between a carrier subject to 

Ct and the employees of such carrier which can not be settled by mediation 
and conciliation in the manner provided in the preceding section, said contro- 
versy may bo submitted to the arbitration of a board of three persons, who shall 
in the manner following: One shall be named by the carrier or em- 
■:■ directly interested; the other shall be named by the labor organization 

iioh the employees directly Interested belong, or. if they belong to more 
by thai one of them which Specially represents employees of the same 
grade and class and engaged in services of the same nature as said employees 
so directly interested: Provided, however, That when a controversy involves and 
affects the interest of two or more classes and grades of employees belonging to 
different labor organizations, Buch arbitrator shall be agreed upon and desig- 

I by the concurrent action of all sin-h labor organizations; and in oases 
• majority of such employees are not members of any labor organiza- 
tion, said employees may by a majority vote select a committee of their own 



32 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

number, which committee shall have the right to select the arbitrator on behalf 
of said employees. The two thus chosen shall select the third commissioner of 
arbitration; but, in the event of their failure to name such arbitrator within 
five days after their first meeting, the third arbitrator shall be named by the 
commissioners named in the preceding section. A majority of said arbitrators 
shall be competent to make a valid and binding award under the provisions 
hereof. The submission shall be in writing, shall be signed by the employer 
and by the labor organization representing the employees, "shall specify the time 
and place of meeting of said board of arbitration, shall state the questions to 
be decided, and shall contain appropriate provisions by which the respective 
parties shall stipulate, as follows : 

First. That the board of arbitration shall commence their hearings within ten 
days from the date of the appointment of the third arbitrator, and shall find 
and file their award, as provided in this section, within thirty days from the 
date of the appointment of the third arbitrator ; and that pending "the arbitra- 
tion the status existing immediately prior to the dispute shall not be changed : 
Provided, That no employee shall be compelled to render personal service with- 
out his consent. 

Second. That the award and the papers and proceedings, including the testi- 
mony relating thereto, certified under the hands of the arbitrators, and which 
shall have the force and effect of a bill of exceptions, shall be filed in the clerk's 
office of the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein the con- 
troversy arises or the arbitration is entered into, and shall be final and con- 
clusive upon both parties, unless set aside for error of law apparent on the 
record. 

Third. That the respective parties to the award will each faithfully execute 
the same, and that the same may be specifically enforced in equity so far as 
the powers of a court of equity permit: Provided, That no injunction or other 
legal process shall be issued which shall compel the performance by any laborer 
against his will of a contract for personal labor or service. 

Fourth. That employees dissatisfied with the award shall not by reason of 
such dissatisfaction quit the service of the employer before the expiration of 
three months from and after the making of such award without giving thirty 
days' notice in writing of their intention so to quit. Nor shall the employer 
dissatisfied with such award dismiss any employee or employees on account of 
such dissatisfaction before the expiration of three monts from and after the 
making of such award without giving thirty days' notice in writing of his inten- 
ton so to discharge. 

Fifth. That said award shall continue in force as between the parties thereto 
for the period of one year after the same shall go into practical operation, and 
no new arbitration upon the same subject between the same employer and the 
same class of employees shall be had until the expiration of said one year if 
the award is not set aside as provided in section four. That as to individual 
employees not belonging to the labor organization or organizations which shall 
enter into the arbitration, the said arbitration and the award made therein 
shall not be binding unless the said individual employees shall give assent in 
writing to become parties to said arbitration. 

Sec. 4. That the award being filed in the clerk's office of a circuit court of the 
United States, as hereinbefore provided, shall go into practical operation, and 
judgment shall be entered thereon accordingly at the expiration of ten days 
from such filing, unless within such ten days either party shall file exceptions 
thereto for matter of law apparent upon the record, in which case said award 
shall go into practical operation and judgment be entered accordingly when 
such exceptions shall have been finally disposed of either by said circuit court 
or on appeal therefrom. 

At the expiration of ten days from the decision of the circuit court upon ex- 
ceptions taken to said award, as aforesaid, judgment shall be entered in accord- 
ance with said decision unless during said ten days either party shall appeal 
therefrom to the circuit court of appeals. In such case only such portion of 
the record shall be transmitted to the appellate court as is necessary to the 
proper understanding and consideration of the questions of law presented by 
said exceptions and to be decided. 

The determination of said circuit court of appeals upon said questions shall 
be final, and, being certified by the clerk thereof to said circuit court, judgment 
pursuant thereto shall thereupon be entered by said circuit court. 

If exceptions to an award are finally sustained, judgment shall be entered 
setting aside the award. But in such case the parties may agree upon a judg- 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES A.ND EMPLOYEES. 33 

mem to be entered disposing of the subject matter of the controversy, which 
judgment when entered shall have the same force and effect as judgment 

entered upon an award. 

S .5. That for the purposes of this act the arbitrators heroin provided Cor, 
or either of them, shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations, sign 
subpoenas, require the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the produc- 
tion of such hooks, papers, contracts, agreements, and documents material to a 
just determination of the matters under Investigation as may be ordered by the 
court; and may Invoke the aid of the United states courts to compel witnesses 
to attend and testify and to produce such books, papers, contracts, agreements, 
and documents to the same extent and under the same conditions and penalties 
- - provided for in the act to regulate commerce approved Fehruary fourth, 
eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and the amendments thereto. 

.6. That every agreement of arbitration under this act shall he acknowl- 

: by the panics before a notary public or clerk of a district or circuit 

court of the United States and when so acknowledged a copy of the same shall 

be transmitted to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, who 

shall file the same in the office of said commission. 

Any agreement of arbitration which shall he entered into conforming to this 

act. except that it shall he executed by employees individually instead of by a 

labor organization as their representative, shall, when duly acknowledged as 

: provided, he transmitted to the chairman of the Interstate Commerce 

lission, who shall cause a notice in writing to he served upon the arbi- 

rs, fixing a time and place for a meeting of said hoard, which shall be 

within fifteen days from the execution of said agreement of arbitration: Pro- 

. That the said chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission 

shall decline to call a meeting of arbitrators under such agreement unless it be 

shown to his satisfaction that the employees signing the submission represent 

or include a majority of all employees in the service of the same employer and 

of the same grade and class, and that an award pursuant to said submission 

can justly be regarded as binding upon all such employees. 

. 7. That during the pendency of arbitration under this act it shall not be 
lawful for the employer, party to such arbitration, to discharge the employees, 
parties thereto, except for inefficiency, violation of law, or neglect of duty: nor 
for the organization representing snob employees to order, nor for the employees 
to unite in. aid. or abet, strikes against said employer; nor. during a period of 
months after an award under snob an arbitration, for such employer to 
any such employees, except for the causes aforesaid, without giving 
thirty days 1 written notice of an intent so to discharge: nor for any of such 
employees, during a like period, to quit the service of said employer without 
just cause, without giving to said employer thirty days' written notice of an 
intent so to do; nor for such organization representing such employees to order. 
3el, or advise otherwise. Any violation of this section shall subject the 
offending party to liability for damages: Provided, That nothing herein con- 
rained shall be construed to prevent any employer, party to such arbitration, 
from reducing the number of its or his employees whenever in its or his judg- 
men - necessities require such reduction. 

8. That in every incorporation under the provisions of chapter five hun- 
and sixty-seven of the United States Statutes of eighteen hundred and 
eighty-five and eighteen hundred and eighty-six it must be provided in the articles 
of incorporation and in the constitution, rules, and by-laws that a member shall 
h by participating in or by instigating force or violence against 
property during strikes, lockouts, or boycotts, or by seeking to pre- 
vent others from working through violence, threats, or intimidations. Mem- 
- ich incorporations shall not be j>ersonally liable for the acts, debts, 
or obligations of the corporations, nor shall such corporations be liable for the 
f members or others in violation of law; and such corporations may 
appear by - - sentatives before the board created by this act, or 

in any suits or pro for or against such corporations or their members 

in any of the Federal court 

- . ft. That whenever receivers appointed by Federal courts are in the pos- 

i and cntro] of railroads, the employees upon such railroads shall have 

the right to bo heard in such courts upon all questions affecting the terms and 

condil their employment, through the officers and representatives of their 

aether Incorporated or unincorporated, and no reduction of v 

!>emadeby such receivers without the authority of the court therefor upon 

such employees. Bald notice to be not less than twenty days before *he 

1421— S. Rept. 72. 63-1 3 



34 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

hearing upon the receivers' petition or application, and to be posted upon all 
customary bulletin boards along or upon the railway operated by such receiver 
or receivers. 

Sec. 10. That any employer subject to the provisions of this act and any 
officer, agent, or receiver of such employer who shall require any employee, or 
any person seeking employment, as a condition of such employment, to enter 
into an agreement, either written or verbal, not to become or remain a member 
of any labor corporation, association, or organization ; or shall threaten any 
employee with loss of employment, or shall unjustly discriminate against any 
employee because of his membership in such a labor corporation, association, or 
organization ; or who shall require any employee or any person seeking employ- 
ment, as a condition of such employment, to enter into a contract whereby such 
employee or applicant for employment shall agree to contribute to any fund for 
charitable, social, or beneficial purposes; to release such employer from legal 
liability for any personal injury by reason of any benefit received from such 
fund beyond the proportion of the benefit arising from the employer's contribu- 
tion to such fund; or who shall, after having discharged an employee, attempt 
or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining employment, or who shall, 
after the quitting of an employee, attempt or conspire to prevent such employee 
from obtaining employment, is hereby declared to be guilty of a misdemeanor, 
and, upon conviction thereof in any court of the United States of competent 
jurisdiction in the district in which such offense was committed, shall be pun- 
ished for each offense by a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. 

Sec. 11. That each member of said board of arbitration shall receive a com- 
pensation of $10 per day for the time he is actually employed, and his travel- 
ing and other necessary expenses; and a sum of money sufficient to pay the 
same, together with the traveling and other necessary and proper expenses 
of any conciliation or arbitration had hereunder, not to exceed $10,000 in any 
one year, to be approved by the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission and audited by the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, is hereby 
appropriated for the fiscal years ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and 
ninety-eight, and June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

Sec. 12. That the act to create boards of arbitration or commission for set- 
tling controversies and differences between railroad corporations and other com- 
mon carriers engaged in interstate or territorial transportation of property or 
persons and their employees, approved October first, eighteen hundred and 
eighty-eight, is hereby repealed. 

Approved, June 1, 1898. 

Senator Bkandegee. Then, in connection with that, I want to ask 
Judge Knapp how section 11, on page 13, differs from the Erdman 
Act, with the idea of finding out whether the Erdman Act at present 
provides for a board of conciliation. 

Judge Knapp. Under the original law, as Mr. Low explained, the 
chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commis- 
sioner of Labor were made the mediators. They performed the 
duties which by this bill are to be performed by the Board of Media- 
tion and Conciliation. 

Senator Brandegee. This provides that the President shall also 
designate not more than two other officials of the Government, who 
have been appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
ate, to be members of the Board of Mediation and Conciliation. Was 
there any discussion among you gentlemen who prepared this act as 
to what kind of officials of the Government were to be the other mem- 
bers of this board ? 

Judge Knapp. Yes ; and the reason for putting it in in that form, 
as I understand it, was to give the President a very wide range of 
selection, because, as you gentlemen can all see, we are dealing with a 
subject which contains so much human nature that the personal ele- 
ment is of much more consequence than it is in almost any other public 
office ; and you might, for example, have a Secretary of Labor or even 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 35 

a Federal judge who, while no matter how able, how upright, never- 
theless Lacked the persona] qualities, the tact, the good judgment, and 

the ability to get the confidence of both sides which would make him 
efficient and successful as a mediator. 

Senator Brandegee. Why was the membership of the Board of 
Conciliation limited to Government officials who were already draw- 
ing salaries and occupying an office? In other words — I am not 
saying this by way of criticism, but simply your provision is a limita- 
tion upon the very Geld which you say it is desirable to occupy, to 
wit. the extent of eligibles from which you might choose. 

Judge Knapp. There are two or three reasons. First, the medi- 
ators under the present law were officials appointed for and discharg- 
ing other duties and to whom this service was an incidental and 
added duty. Second, on the theory that to take some man already 
in public office, of high character, gives added dignity and influence 
to the Board of Mediation and Conciliation, of which he is a member, 
and to its action, in that there is perhaps a greater degree of respon- 
sibility. Third, to save expenses, because if the President were to go 
outside under the law and select the other members of this board. 
taking those receiving no compensation from the Government, the 
provision would have to be made for their compensation. 

uator Brandegee. One other question and I am through. On 
1. in the second paragraph, you provide that — 

Either party to the said agreement may apply to the Board of Mediation and 
Conciliation for an expression of opinion from such board as to the meaning or 
application of such agreement, and the said board shall upon receipt of such 
>st give its opinion as soon as may be practicable. 

Of course, I am not familiar with the discussion that led up to 
the adoption of that language or the purpose of the draftsman, but 
I wondered whether that, if left as it is. would not be to a certain 
i stent — you do not provide that the opinion of the board as to the 
meaning or application of the agreement shall constitute the inter- 
pretation of the agreement that shall be accepted by the parties, and 
Slime, therefore, that you intend that it shall simply have such 
moral effect as it is entitled to. 

Judge Knapp. You appreciate. Senator, that the proceedings in 
mediation are peculiarly voluntary; their purpose is to bring the 
contending parties together to a voluntary settlement. Now, that 
settlement will be expressed in writing; it will usually be a new wage 
. Into that will come perhaps a new provision with new lan- 
guage. When it is made and those who participated in making the 
\t appear to be of one mind, that mind will be expressed in 
the language, but when they go out on this road or that road and 
come to apply the agreement the question arises, "What does this 
mean?" The manager says it means so and so, and the employee 
take- a different view. 

Senator Brandegee. I understand all that, of course, but my query 
was directed to bring out the reason for not making the opinion of 
the board of conciliation binding upon the parties ;i- to the meaning 
of th< ent which has been arbitrated by them. 

Judge Knapp. This La not where there is arbitration. 

ator Brandegee. I know; but it i- the agreement by which they 
submitted to arbitration $ 

Judffp Knapp. \ . 



36 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Senator Brandegee. What agreement does it refer to ? 

Judge Knapp. That applies to cases where they have voluntarily 
settled without arbitration. 

Senator Brandegee. It says an agreement reached through media- 
tion. 

Judge Knapp. Yes ; by settlement reached through mediation. 

Senator Brandegee. Well, mediation, then? 

Judge Knapp. Yes. 

Senator Brandegee. Why should the board of conciliation express 
an opinion about what the parties meant by an agreement for media- 
tion ? 

Judge Knapp. Because they have participated in that mediation, 
and that settlement has presumably been brought about by the nego- 
tiations in which they took part. 

Senator Brandegee. Then, why not make the opinion of the board 
binding upon the parties as to the intent of the agreement? 

Judge Knapp. Because the settlement itself is not binding except 
in their good faith. 

Senator Brandegee. Why not make it as binding as the agreement 
was? 

Judge Knapp. You have introduced an element of compulsion 
which we have been very careful to avoid. 

Senator Brandegee. The agreement is no more compulsory, you 
admit, than its appeal to the honor of those entering into it. 

Judge Knapp. Let me make another answer. It is to give legal 
sanction to what Commissioner Neill and myself have felt under a 
degree of moral obligation to do. We have been connected with a 
great many of these negotiations in which settlements have resulted 
and new contracts have been made, and it has quite frequently oc- 
curred that some question as to the meaning of that section was 
raised. For example, there was a settlement with all these south- 
eastern roads relating to their conductors and trainmen, and it 
omitted distinctly and purposely the colored porters employed on 
passenger trains. The question came up on a given road. What is a 
porter? Not because he is colored, but what is a porter? They asked 
us to say what we though they ought to do in that case. We have 
volunteered in many cases to say what we thought was intended by 
the parties when they made the contract, so that this realty is to 
give them the right to ask that opinion and sanction the giving of 
it for whatever effect it may have. 

Senator Eobinson. I merely wanted to ask whether there had 
been many cases in which the Erdman Act had been availed of since 
its passage. 

Judge Knapp. How many are there — about 60? 

Dr. Neill. Sixty. 

Judge Knapp. Or something more than 60. 

Senator Eobinson. It has in a large measure proved a practical 
remedy, then? 

Judge Knapp. Senator, believing that I know something about 
the conditions which have prevailed in this country in the last 10 
or 11 years, to go no further back, I think it is most remarkable that 
in that period there has been no considerable strike on any railroad 
in the United States. It happens to be the fact that in no instance 
has a strike followed the intervention of the mediators. There have 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 37 

been two or three instances of a purely local character having no 
general significance where they struck first and then invoked media- 
tion afterwards. 

Let me say in that connection now it has become a most onerous 
burden upon men appointed to other duties, which themselves have 
been growing in their importance and in volume, to add this to it. 
I only say this to illustrate, but this thing happened to come to me 
because I happened to be the chairman of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission when this law was passed or when it came to be actively 
administered, and I have sat up many a night until 3 and 4 o'clock 
in the morning conducting these negotiations in Chicago, in New 
York, in St. Loui>. and elsewhere, and then have come back to Wash- 
ington and worked nights and Sundays to catch up with the com- 
mission's work which I was obliged to neglect, and Brother Neill 
here was in a much more serious condition. It had become too serious 
a matter. It takes too much time. There is need, therefore, of ap- 
pointing somebody who shall not be burdened with other duties and 
who can give this practically his entire time. 

Mr. Webb. I just wanted to ask the judge the difference in the 
Hxed cost of the administration of the Erdman Act and the one you 
propose? How much more would it cost the Government to admin- 
ister the proposed law than to administer the Erdman Act? I 
should like to get into the record some idea of the increased cost to 
the Government in passing this law. 

Judge Kxapp. I will say $25,000 a year, because, you see, under 
the present law the mediators get no compensation at all. Xow you 
are proposing a commissioner, who shall get $7,500 a .year, and an 
iant. at s.\000 a year. They must be provided with an office. 
They will have to have at least one or two stenographers and clerks, 
and there will be other miscellaneous expenses. I would therefore 
e>timate the expenses of maintaining these two officials and their 
offices at. say, si'5.000. The cost of arbitration would be practically 
the same as it is now. 

Mr. Clayton. Judge, you said it would increase the cost by reason 
of the fact that this proposed bill creates a board of conciliation; 
creates new offices. Under the Erdman Act in its practical admin- 
istration, now. officers who have other duties to perform — for in- 
stance, yourself as judge and Mr. Xeill as a Commissioner of Labor — 
were detailed to act as a board of mediation and conciliation and 
taken away from your duties while you were discharging the duty 
of media ton and conciliation. Is that not true? 

Judge Kxapp. Precisely. 

Mr. ( r.AYrox. So that. then, really, if we take that into considera- 
tion, it does not add anything to the cost. 

Judge Kxapp. Yes: but we did not get anything for it. 

Mr. Clayton. I know you did not, but you received your salary. 
That i> what I mean to say. You received your salary, but the 
•rnment was deprived of your work in other capacities. That 
is what I mean to say. 

Senator Cummins. I want to ask another question. Take this 
language : 

The President shall also designate not more than two other officials of the 
Government, who have been appointed by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, and the officials thus designated, together with the Commissioner of 

Mediation and Conciliation — 



38 ARBITRATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

and so on. I will not ask about the meaning of_that language, but 
I want to ask your purpose. Do you intend th'at, for illustration, 
suppose the President were to designate the Secretary of the Depart- 
ment of Labor, that if the present Secretary should give way to 
another, that then, ipso facto or ex officio, the new Secretary of Labor 
would become a member of the board? 

Judge Knapp. No, Senator ; I think it is designed to make that 
quite personal ; and you will observe that while the term of office of 
the commissioner is fixed, there is no term of office for the other two 
members. They practically, therefore, hold their assignment to 
this duty at the will of the President. He could terminate it at any 
time. 

Senator Cummins. You intend, then, that the President's desig- 
nation can be changed at any time? 

Judge Knapp. At any time. They hold that place at his will. 

Senator Cummins. And that when made the person who holds the 
office at that time shall continue until the President makes another 
designation ? 

Judge Knapp. I so understand. 

Senator Brandegee. Do you mean that he shall designate the Com- 
missioner of Labor, and that when his administration should cease 
and the Commissioner of Labor should become a private citizen, he 
should still continue to be a member of this board of conciliation; 
or is it the intention that the board shall always be composed of 
men who are officials of the Government? 

Judge Knapp. Offhand I should say he would go out of office 
because the authority to hold it would cease. 

Senator Brandegee, I do not think your bill is quite plain about 
that. I think a question could be raised also as the President is 
bound to appoint officials of the Government to a position, but it 
does not make the holding of a Government office a necessary quali- 
fication to continue in the position. I think there might be some 
question raised there. 

Senator Clapp. That could be corrected. 

Mr. Beall. I should like to ask a question. Some years ago there 
was an industrial commission appointed. Was that before the pas- 
sage of the Erdman Act? 

Judge Knapp. I should say since ; that is my recollection. 

Mr. Beall. My recollection is that they suggested some kind of 
legislation. Do you know how near this conforms, if at all, to the 
recommendations of that industrial commission? 

Judge Knapp. I am not able to state. 

Senator Lippitt. I should like to ask the judge about how long 
a time has generally been occupied in taking the testimony in con- 
sidering cases of arbitration? 

Judge Knapp. That depends so much upon the nature of the con- 
troversy that it is hard to say. I have known cases where the 
arbitrators would take all the testimony in a couple of days, and there 
have been cases where they were three, four, or six weeks. How 
long were you in this firemen's case ? 

Mr. Carter. Thirty-one days, taking everything. 

Mr. Stone. Fourteen days taking testimony and seven months 
getting the verdict. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 39 

Senator LirpiTT. How long after the closing of the testimony has 
the verdict gener ally been given $ Promptly, as a rule? 

Judge Knapp. Where the arbitration has taken place under the 
terms of the Erdman law the award has been made almost imme- 
diately — very promptly. Tn the arbitration of the controversy of 
the engineers with the eastern railroads, which was, in fact, a com- 
mon-law arbitration, outside of the law, as Mr. Stone just said they 
were 14 days taking the testimony and 7 months in getting the 
verdict. 

Mr. Low. Might I surest that Mr. Carter, president of the Broth- 
erhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. be called upon next. 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. S. CARTER, PRESIDENT BROTHERHOOD 
OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN. 

Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the joint committee, 
a question was asked of Mr. Low by what authority the personnel 
that made up this joint committee who have prepared this bill pre- 
sented such a bill to Congress for its passage. Speaking for myself 
I will say that so far as the preparation of the tentative bill is con- 
cerned I had no authority other than that vested in me as president 
of the organization. Since the tentative draft was submitted by 
Mr. Low. and I understand it has been introduced in its entirety, 
the convention of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and En- 
ginemen convened in the city of Washington. This tentative bill 
has been presented to that convention, made up of more than 800 
delegates, and it has been printed in the proceedings. When I re- 
ceived notice of this hearing this morning I went before that body 
and stated the purpose of this hearing, the situation, as I saw it, 
affecting other organizations, and by unanimous consent I am here 
representing that organization in behalf of this bill. 

I think, so far as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and 
Enginemen is concerned, there can be no question as to the bill being 
acceptable, at least to that organization. Xow. do not understand 
that this organization waives any right it may have in future years 
si amendments to this law. or to join with the others, but we 
believe that an emergency exists right now that demands immediate 
action on our part at least if not on the part of Congress. Fortu- 
nately for this action the emergency does not affect us. We have 
passed the emergency period and for the present at least are all 
right. 

S i far as these wage disputes are concerned, too, we recognize 
that two other organizations are in the identical position in which 
we were placed only a short time ago. and we recognize that unless 
some action is taken there is a strong probability of the greatest rail- 
road strike the world ever saw. My understanding of the situation 
is that the Order of Railway Conductors and the Order of Railroad 
Trainmen have presented requests or demands, as they have been 
termed, for certain wage increases and improved working conditions. 
I understand that after negotiations with the conference committee 
of railway managers the committee agreed to disagree. I under- 
stand the representative committees of the conductors and trainmen 
proposed arbitration under the Erdman Act. If I am not misin- 



40 AEBITEATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

formed the conference committee of railway managers absolutely 
refused to arbitrate under the present law. I understand that the 
members of these two great organizations of railroad employees are 
polling their men for a strike vote on more than 50 railroads because 
the railroads have refused to arbitrate under the present law. It 
appears to me at this time that you are going to see one of the most 
novel strikes the world has ever seen, a strike on the part of 80,000 
railroad men because the railroads will not arbitrate under the laws 
of the land. It -will be a novelty, but it will be none the less serious 
because it is novel. It is because of the contentions of the railroads 
that they will not submit so serious a problem to the dictum or con- 
clusions of one man that this joint committee is made up of repre- 
sentatives of railroad employees, representatives of railroad corpora- 
tions, and representatives of, you might say, the general public 
through the Civic Federation. 

We believe that the emergency exists, and we believe that Congress 
should do something and do it quick. Now, I believe, as briefly as 
I can, I have expressed to you the situation. Personally we are not 
interested at the present. We realize that some day we may be in- 
terested again. We do recognize, however, that the conductors and 
trainmen are in the position where they probably will be compelled 
to strike, because the railroads believe that their interests would not 
be protected if submitted to arbitration under the law as it exists. 

I said a while ago that while we were very favorable to the bill 
we recognize that there are some features of it that in the future 
might be improved upon, but it is an emergency measure so far as 
we are concerned. Something should be done immediately. For 
instance, in the 12th paragraph on page 7, if I had my way about it 
the first word would be changed from " may " to " shall," but rather 
than delay this bill let us have it as it is without the change of a 
single word. To me it appears that nothing is more important in an 
arbitration proceeding than that the disputes as to the meaning of 
the award should be passed upon by the authority that made that 
award. It seems absurd that a commission appointed under the pro- 
visions of law should make a finding, should reach a decision, render- 
ing an award, and then leave to the railroads and their employees an 
endless fight as to what that award meant. 

Now, I want to say to you to-day that while our award is passed 
we find ourselves confronted with the position that the railroads on 
the one hand can not agree on the meaning, which practically makes 
the arbitration null and void because they will not agree. For in- 
stance, the award specifically stated that hostlers should receive a 
certain compensation, $2.40 a day, if they are not employed on the 
main line. Since the arbitration award has been made public the 
railroads contend that these men are not hostlers. They have 
changed their name in many instances to engine repairers, and in 
many cases they have added to their duties and called them foremen. 
In other places they have taken from their duties and called them 
watchmen and wipemen. So that the result is that the arbitration 
award, so far as hostlers are concerned, has been made null and 
void by the refusal of many of the railroads to understand it. How 
we are ever going to settle that I do not know. Some of our men 
propose another strike. This strike will be to compel the railroads 
to live up to the award. We have proposed to the conference com- 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 41 

mittee of managers that we convene the arbitration board again so 
as to pass upon this subject The conference committee of managers 

have declined, saying that these differences should first be settled 
between the two representative committees. Our committee met in 
this city and we immediately acquiesced in their position and pro- 
posed a joint committee of our committees. We now have another 
reply declining to meet our joint committee unless we make more 
specific presentation of the matters. 

I say to you that unless you change the word "may" to "shall," 
on page 7 — the first word in article 12 — then our men can be just 
as unfair. Do not misunderstand me — our men. the employees, can 
be just as unfair in assuming that a certain clause in the award 
meant something as the railroad officials, and I do not want to be 
misunderstood as saying that the fault lies with either, but probably 
with both. 

T1h i twelfth provision o{ section 4 

- riator Clapp. It is on page 7. line 3. 

Mr. Carter. Unfortunately we have a great many different copies. 
Mine is on page 7 of S. 2517. Section 4 provides: 

That the agreement to arbitrate, first, shall be in writing, etc. 

These are stipulations: 

Twelfth. May also provide that any difference arising as to the meaning or 
the application of the provisions of an award made by a board of arbitration 
shall be referred back to the same board or to a subcommittee of such board 
for a ruling, which ruling shall have the same force and effect as the original 
award: and if any member of the original board is unable or unwilling to serve, 
another arbitrator shall bo named in the same manner as such original member 
was named. 

Now, my suggestioD is that that stipulation be mandatory rather 
than selective or optional, because where you have used all the ma- 
chinery of the law to bring about an arbitration it would be indeed 
unfortunate if either the employees or the employer, in seeking to 
avoid arbitration, should assume a definition which was not satis- 
factory. 

We are in this position: Our arbitration was under the Erdman 
Act The Erdman Act makes no provision for referring such dis- 
putes back to arbitration. Therefore, if we had even this law. under 
the present act, it would be a great hardship on us. 

Wo are in this position, gentlemen: The award is not being applied 
as we believe it should be applied. We have appealed to the com- 
mittee of management to again convene the arbitration board so that 
they can decide it. They have declined, and suggested that the two 
committees meet and decide what the differences are, and if they 
can not decide the differences that then we go to the arbitration board. 
uator Clapp. It is very evident. Mr. Carter, that you have opened 
up a matter that can not bo concluded this morning on account of 
the House Members having to attend the session of the House, and 
T -iiL r L r o-t that we take a recess at this time. 

Mr. Cabter. I will have to leave. I can not return. I am sup- 

<\ to be presiding over a convention of 825 men, and I have a 

substitute now. If it had not been for the interest of those 825 men 

in this hearing I would now be at the Arcade presiding over that 

body. 



42 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

The Chairman. Can you not be here at 2 o'clock? 

Mr. Carter. I regret to say that I can not, and I have now said all 

1 desire to say. 

The Chairman. The committee will take a recess until 2 o'clock. 
(Accordingly at 12 o'clock m. the committee took a recess until 

2 o'clock p. m.) 

AFTER RECESS. 

The committee reassembled at the conclusion of the recess, at 2 
o'clock p. m. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that Mr. Garretson, who repre- 
sents the railway conductors, speak first to the committee this after- 
noon ? 

The Chairman. The committee will be glad to hear Mr. Garretson. 

STATEMENT OF A. B. GARRETSON, PRESIDENT RAILWAY 
CONDUCTORS, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. 

Mr. Garretson. Mr. Chairman, in regard to our connection with 
the Erclman Act and our interest in it — I am using the word " our " 
in the sense of the railway organizations — I want to draw your at- 
tention to this fact: In its original inception the Erdman Act was 
pressed to adoption by the five railway brotherhoods against the 
strong objection of all other labor bodies of this country. Conse- 
quently our interest in it is as old as the enactment itself. 

The modification that was there presented was nothing except the 
crystallization of the experience that both interests, the railway 
companies and their employees, have had in its application so far. 
At the time the original act was passed collective dealing, as it is 
termed, had never passed the stage of one railroad company and one 
or two of the brotherhoods. There has been for very many years a 
common practice on the part of at least this organization of con- 
ductors — I do not mean of working jointly, for that practice pre- 
dates the enactment of the original Erdman Act itself — but prior to 
1903 there never was an instance where more than one railway com- 
pany was represented in any deal of any character, and the most 
that were represented up to that period were four at one time, and 
that was not carried to a successful conclusion on account of the 
novelty of the idea, possibly, that those companies were unable to 
agree between themselves and break away after collective negotia- 
tions were made, and make individual settlements. 

But in the year 1903 came the inception of the collective deals with 
a large number of the railway companies. In that instance 49 rail- 
w^ljs west of Chicago came under the provisions of the Erdman Act. 
It was many years before the arbitration feature of the act was ever 
applied, but when it was applied then it did not meet with the ap- 
proval, especially of the employers, on account of the large responsi- 
bilities — the financial responsibilities — that were placed upon a single 
man as the arbitrator, on account of the insistence of the railway 
companies on a modification of that feature, we representing the 
men — and in this connection I want to supplement what Mr. Carter 
said this forenoon in regard to actual authorization. Mr. Carter told 
you that his body, the supreme body now in session, had unanimously 
authorized it. The supreme body of the order of railway conductors 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 43 

closed on the 24th day of May. That body, with the exception of 
three dissenting votes, authorized the modification of the act along 

precisely the lines that are named here. The Brotherhood of Rail- 
way Trainmen, the representative of that organization not being 
present, but Mr. Stone, the engineers, and myself, holding plenary 
I ower to represent them- -that organization was closed on the 4th 
Jay of June just past, and they likewise, without dissenting votes, 
authorized these changes: and I would further draw your attention 
to the fact thai this committee that is named here, representing the 
railway companies and the organizations, did not agree on those 
matters haphazard; they met and conferred, and the modifications 
that are here presented are the outcome of the personal conferences 
held by the men there named, and it is the crystallization of the 
experience that all have had. because there is no man there named 
who has not had more or less experience with the application of 
both the modification and the arbitration features of the Erdman 
Act. 

As far a- the brotherhoods are concerned, the modification features 
are of far greater importance to us from our own standpoint than the 
arbitration. The arbitration is simply the final step in the event 
'ification fail-. 

It i> a matter of interest to every man who is engaged in any pur- 
suit in which he depends upon transportation to know whether or 
not there is a means that can be availed of to avoid conditions that 
occasionally arise — to quote the language itself of the old act, the 
threatening of interruption of traffic — and those questions do arise 
in spite of the best will that there may be on the part of either the 
men themselves and tho-e who are representing them on the part 
of the employer, because every man is conversant with the stress that 
arises when certain pressing interests of great amount are involved; 
and out of the friction of negotiation arises a condition where there 
ought to be — and we recognize it fully — some means that furnish 
an hcnorable road out for both interests. Those modifications are 
few in number. They are not radical in their nature. They are -im- 
ply an adaptation of the Erdman Act to the changed conditions that 
have grown np since its original framing, and in this enactment are 
incorporated the best judgments of the three interests that have dealt 
with this question. 

The success or failure of any act of this character will always 
largely depend upon the personality of the men who administer it. 
and unless those men develop the qualities that are necessary for suc- 
cessfully acting the part of mediators the act is not worth the ink 
that it took to print it. 

That is the outgrowth of the experience, or the crystallization of 
the experience, of a man who has probably been as well Erdmanized 
a- any living man. 

My connection with the men who have acted as administrators has 
grown up under the application of this act. and it is the personal 
qualities of those men that have contributed so largely, first, to suc- 
ful settlement, where the mediator is able to make a successful 
settlement on account of the peaceful qualities that invoke the con- 
fidence — absolute — of both parties, because mediation is absolutely 
founded on good faith and confidence, and no other features will 



44 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

ever make it a success. It is the effort to strengthen the hands of men 
who have developed those qualities that are written in here. 

The law provides that either party to the controversy may invoke 
the good offices of the mediators, but there has been at least one in- 
stance that has stood out more prominently than others where neither 
side was invoked. When affairs come to a stress, you will all recognize 
how loath either interest is to openly show its hand, and for fear of 
relinquishment of a strategic advantage one side or the other will not 
invoke the good offices of the mediators. Therefore it became neces- 
sary, in the opinion of all concerned, to provide that the mediator 
could, of his own initiative, tender his good services where neither side 
desired to bring it about, and it is a power that should be attached to 
the office for whoever may avail of it. 

Moreover, one of the most prolific causes of trouble of this kind 
has been that when a settlement was effected, always in haste, always 
under strong mental stress on the part of both sides, even if not on 
the part of the mediator, there has arisen afterwards a difference of 
opinion between the employee and the employer as to what the terms 
actually meant, and there has been no means by which an interpreta- 
tion — I mean a proper interpretation — could be given by the media- 
tor. This embodies the power that on request of either he will inter- 
pret to give force to the findings. 

Now, it may be said that you can not make it binding, and that is 
true. There is nothing in mediation that is binding except the good 
faith of the parties thereto, but there is not in the record of all the 
years that these provisions have been in effect an instance where there 
has been a vicious violation of faith on the part of either interest. 
Occurrences may have arisen where this or that party might be 
charged with not religiously carrying out the understandings, but it 
has been a matter of opinion, and there has never been, in my knowl- 
edge, a case where they could be willfully charged with bad faith. 
But it is to eliminate the point of difference that now exists. 

The next section, section 3, provides that under certain conditions 
six mediators may be chosen instead of three, as under the present 
law. There is a point upon which the brotherhoods had but little 
interest. They are — well, you might say, good gamblers. They will 
throw the choice as quickly on the judgment of one man as on the 
judgment of two or three, but the men who had the same amounts 
at stake as they had, where they were scattered all around among a 
large number of men, insist that there should be a larger number 
of men. Any man who can put himself in the other man's place 
would recognize the justness of a position of that kind, the only 
point of difference between us at any period being as to how that 
board should be constituted, we insisting from start to finish that 
there can be only arbitrators from the three interests involved; that 
is, two from each of the two contestants and two from the third 
party, or three, as the case might be. That is our experience grow- 
ing out of the engineers' arbitration. 

Senator Pomerene. What do you mean by the third party — the 
public ? 

Mr. Garretson. The public. The public has an interest, bear in 
mind. AVe all recognize that the public has an interest whenever 
public interest is threatened. As long as public interest is not threat- 
ened, then it is a private war between employer and employees, but 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES 45 

the minute that the outgrowth of that private war threatens the pub- 
lic interest the public comes into exactly the same relation to it as 
we do, and their rights are as great as ours— some say greater. AW 
say uo. and we say thai they arc entitled to just the same repre- 
sentation on this board that the other contestants arc. There is no 
question but that the two men we choose will be partisans. There 
is no question but that the two men chosen by the employers will 
be partisans, and since the questions handled by arbitration have 
been of this character you need men who are conversant with practi- 
cal business, and that was never more fully exemplified than in the 
case where the engineers 3 arbitration board could not decide the 
simplest questions where a bunch of red-necked delegates sitting on 
a board proceeded to regulate matters. They were perfectly willing 
to handle heavenly bodies, but they could not handle a trade ques- 
tion, and (Mir insistence is that there should be an equal number of 
men conversant with tho questions that can be handled and that can 
not be run away with by a nonpraetical body. 

Fou know the proviso for adding these men does not make it ob- 
ligatory that there should be six instead of three. Tt makes it one 
of the stipulations as between the contracting parties. 

The third paragraph of the stipulations in section 4 provides that 
the stipulation shall state whether the board of arbitration is to con- 
sist of three or six members. That becomes a matter of agreement 
t ween the parties. Tf a small matter arises of an old character. 
re only one road is involved, as can readily be the case, it leaves 
just the present number of men to decide it. On the other hand, if a 
large question arises, as is at present pending, it makes it possible to 
get the necessary number of men to deal with the proposition with- 
out placing undue -tress upon the single individual. 

The eighth stipulation of section 4 makes it a matter of agree- 
ment between them as to the time that may elapse. Under the 
sent provisions of the Erdman Act a decision must be handed 
down within 30 days. Under the last arbitration that was held under 
the present act. where the firemen drafted an agreement between the 
contesting parties, they extended that time — T think it was extended 
to 15 days beyond the stipulated time. This provides that they can 
stipulate — if the conditions are such as to make it necessary — for a 
what longer time, but in the absence of a stipulation it shall re- 
main at the old 30-day period. 

The ninth provision state-: 

'1 provide for the date from which the award shall become effective, and 
shall fix • daring which the so id award shall continue in force 

The old law provided tho exact time that the award should remain 

in effect. This makes it a question of stipulation between the parties 

a- to how long the award shall be in effect and when it shall take 

' s have arisen where it was necessary to date the appli- 

ii of the award back, a practice which has been recognized by 

both parties. This provides that it can be done, but it makes it a 

'' agreement between the parties under the question of facts 

that are involved. 

The twelfth Stipulation gives the arbitrator- the same power to 

their findings a- they had to make the original award. That 

. provision. To-day you hoar tic story that, it took 

14 days to give the evidence in the ei ' arbitration and it took 



46 AEBITEATIOItf BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

7 months to get the award, but neither party knows what they 
have got, and they have been trying ever since to get that body to 
interpret its own award, and it has not been successful. It has been 
doing this for three years, and some of them will be in their graves 
before they know what they got — some of them are now and the 
majority of them will be before they really know. 

Section 7 provides, in addition to the other clauses in the stipula- 
tion, that the arbitration must confine itself to the matter that is 
submitted to it — the ordinary legal operation that they can not get 
outside of the finding. That necessity is the outgrowth of the engi- 
neers' award. The other clause is in regard to the machinery for 
making it effective. 

Originally the Commissioner of Labor and the chairman of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission were the ex officio Erdman arbi- 
trators. In fact, when the law was first enacted it was an experiment. 
There was absolutely no enactment of this character that furnished 
anything to go upon. It was doubted. It did lie absolutely dormant 
from its passage in 1898 until 1903. 

Judge Knapp. 1906. 

Mr. Gakretson. 1906. I got the date confused. It never was 
invoked. From that date to this it has been in active application, 
and there have been times when the inability of the mediators to get 
to the cases in question has almost precipitated trouble that was 
easily avoided after they were able to get onto the ground. 

Laboring men, as you possibly know, are an intensely suspicious 
bunch of men. That is not only true of railroad men, but it is true 
of them in general. Whenever any impediment is laid in the way of 
effecting a settlement at a time of stress they are prone to believe 
that there is a motive behind the delay, no matter how reasonable 
that delay may be, and after they learn to verify all the facts then 
they lose that feeling. But the trouble is the feeling is existent at 
the time of other stress that makes them hard to control, and the 
man who has tried to control them at times like that is a man who 
knows best how hard they are to control. It makes a department 
independent for the purpose of dealing with the application of the 
Erdmari. Act alone. It provides not only a commissioner but an 
assistant commissioner, and associated with them two officers of the 
Government who ■ shall be available for the same purpose in their 
aid, and does away with a large amount of delay, and if that goes 
on and in its future application grows as it has grown in years 
gone by, it will need still further additions along the same line to 
make it possible to meet those cases promptly as they arise. But it 
is believed that the force here named is sufficient for a considerable 
period to meet the demand that will be made upon that department. 

Now, a word in regard to the things that tend to make this a 
desirable change for the settlement of the trouble. I spoke a moment 
ago in regard to the mediator being able to develop the qualities that 
are necessary. If he were handicapped with certain features, though 
he had all the other qualifications necessary for a successful mediator, 
he would have to live down some handicaps before he became useful. 
You can readily understand it. Take it from the divided stand- 
point of the employer and the employee, that no railway company 
would accept a laboring man as a mediator — I am not speaking of 
arbitration at all, but mediation — as mediator. Until he had proved 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 47 

himself able to rise above the environment that created him he would 
be useless. No number of employees would accept a mediator who 
came from the railway ranks, no matter how good his record — I mean 
the official ranks, anil what is true of the labor end of it is absolutely 
true of the political end. The effort here is to make this department 
absolutely free from all entangling influences of that character and 
put in it a man who will have just as little dead weight as possible 
to drag in getting his standing with the two interests. 

Take the men at present occupying the position, the former Com- 
missioner of Labor ami the former chairman of the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, now chief justice of the Commerce Court. Those 
men can go in when strife runs the highest, when suspicion is ram- 
pant, and from the record that they have both made in the years they 
have devoted to this they can get a hearing when a rank outsider could 
not even get a look-in. And why is it i It is because they possess 
the qualities that they have — not freedom from criticism, because I 
will say to yen that 1 have seen the time when I believed manslaughter 
was not a very serious sin — and I would have directed it against both 
commissioners with a perfectly clear conscience. [Laughter.] But 
I have one comfort at the same time. Probably, the next time we were 
conferring, there were 10 general managers who would have resented 
bitterly if I had killed them. They wanted to do it themselves. 

There i- a spirit that enters into these negotiations that while we 
criticize them we ^t: ill admit their fairness, and we can always 
appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober and give them great credit 
for the ability that they have shown to run straight. We want them 
just a- Free from politics and as free from the taint of either the 
employer or employee as possible, but we take a peculiar position in 

_ :-ii to those men. You hear the idea go forward about the labor 
men doing this, that, or the other thing. We are all on record that 
we do not want a labor man as a mediator — I mean the four chiefs 
of these brotherhoods. The brotherhoods themselves are with them 
and are backing their judgment. We do not want a labor man there 
because he would have to overcome the handicap, even if he were big 
enough above it. As years run by he would be turned to 

until he demonstrated that fact. We do not want an employer there. 
What we want is an outsider of standing. Put men under this act 
who have never been identified with the employing class or the 
employee class. We want to leave the administration of the act 
just a- i'ree in years to come as in the days gone by. It is simply 
the crystallization of this purpose and that is why the act is framed 
as it is. leaving this department exactly like the Interstate Commerce 
Commi>sion itself — free and independent. If it is under the control 
of the Secretary of Commerce it would be subject to the belief on the 
pari of our men that tic Secretary of Commerce, representing natur- 
ally the employer '■la--, might exercise an influence in the control of 
the men. On the other hand, we recognize that if it was under the 
control of the Department of Labor, that the other side would be just 
luch justified in claiming that labor might be able to influence 
the appointment of the men. I > u t we do not want that. We want it 
absolutely independent and responsible to the President of the Re- 
public alone. In that I am speaking only fo r 

Tic Chairman. You mean an independent commission 1 



48 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Mr. Garretson. An absolutely independent commission, as free 
from control as it is possible to make one. 

The Chairman. Has there been any contention that this organiza- 
tion would be affected under the Department of Labor ? 

Mr. Garretson. How is that ? I did not understand you. 

The Chairman. I say, has there been any contention that this 
organization would be affected under the Department of Labor ? 

Mr. Garretson. Not that I know of. The attitude of the depart- 
ment I can not speak for, because I have heard no expression from 
them on the subject. 

The Chairman. The brotherhood would be opposed to that, would 
they? 

Mr. Garretson. Bear in mind that the brotherhoods are opposed 
to that for this reason: I do not want a mistaken opinion drawn 
from that. These organizations have always been on friendly terms 
with the men who have filled that office from the day it was created. 
There is not a man in existence to-day who has the greater friendship 
or greater regard of all these organizations than the present Secre- 
tary of Labor, and the proof of it is that every one of the heads of 
these organizations strongly and absolutely indorsed him for the 
position he holds. Do not get the idea that our attitude in this mat- 
ter is on account of any question of either his fairness or his ability. 
It is the handicap of labor dominating it that we do not want the 
other side to be able to take advantage of. That explains our 
position. 

The Chairman. I understood that to be your position. 

Mr. Garretson. Absolutely so. 

Mr. Low. May I interrupt you to say that in the conference which 
I had the other day with the Secretary of Labor, while he did not 
commit himself formally on that point, I think he does hold the view, 
or intimated that he might hold the view, however, that the organi- 
zation should be in that department. 

Mr. Garretson. In that conference, I will say, Mr. Chairman, as 
Mr. Low has said, he gave no definite statement one way or the other, 
but I would draw the conclusion that he felt that the department 
would lose a portion of its dignity if it was shorn of a bureau that he 
felt properly belonged to him. Now, I might have done him an in- 
justice in so interpreting him. 

The Chairman. Your position or the position of the brotherhood 
is that they want an independent commission, somewhat resembling 
the Interstate Commerce Commission? 

Mr. Garretson. Of exactly the same nature. 

Mr. Adair. Under that department or bureau, but independent and 
only responsible to the President ? 

Mr. Garretson. Only to the President. That is what this em- 
bodies, and that is the idea underlying the formation of the amend- 
ment as offered. 

Now, if there are any questions by members of the committee I shall 
be glad to answer them. 

Senator Pomerene. I am laboring under a disadvantage in not 
having been here this morning and I do not therefore know what 
ground has been covered. Who drew this bill ? Does that appear in 
the record now ? 



[SITUATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 49 

Mr. Garretson. No; I think not. It may in some indirect form. 
The bill was drawn after a conference at which the gentlemen named 
on the back were present. 

Senator Pomerene. Just name them. 

Mr. Garretson. Those arc in the record already, and this was 
formulated as the outcome ol the conference between them. 

Senator Pomerene. Does this meet with the unanimous approval 
of all <>f those gentlemen '. 

Mr. Garretson. It meet- the unanimous approval of all of those 
gentlemen and a large number of other railway companies, of the 
brotherhoods that were affected by it- provisions, and of the two 
administrators of the Erdman Act during all the years that it has 
been in existence. 

Senator Pomerene. I have been so much occupied since this bill 
was introduced that I have had no time to either read it or study it. 
Can you state briefly what, if any, objections have been urged to this 
bill? 

Mr. Garretson. I have never heard a single objection. 

Senator Pomerene. And do any objections occur to you? 

Mr. Garretson. They do not. Bear in mind that when I say 
they do not I will say that no body of men — it is impossible that with 
a number of men who have controlled men as many years as they 
have there would not be some minor preference as to this, that, or 

the other 

nator Pomerene. T mean as to the fundamental features of it. 

Mr. Garretson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Webb. T notice the absence of any men representing the 
Southern Co. or the Seaboard Air Line or the Coast Line. Ts there 
any significance in that on the part of the railroads? 

Sir. Garretson. There is not. in my opinion. Mr. Low. the rep- 
tative of the railway companies, can give you fuller informa- 
tion than I can as to that. But I will say this for at least the repre- 
atives of these three roads. I will make the representation per- 
sonally — Mr. Copeman I can make it for. Mr. Weeks. w 7 ho was for- 
merly genera] manager, and Mr. , of the Coast Line— that they 

are all believers in and adherents of the Erdman Act, and they are 
also believers in it- modification to a certain extent, but how far 
they have gone I can not say. 

Mr. Webb. You speak for the conductors in regard to that. 

Mr. Garretson. I speak for the conductors only, and, in a sense, 
for the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. Mr. Stone and \ are 
ting the executive of that organization. 

Mr. W] I they are conductors and trainmen on these various 

systems \ 

Mr. Garri WON. They arc the conductors and trainmen on all those 

Mr Wl BB. And it includes the Seaboard Air Line and the C6a!St 

Mr. Garrets > Oh, -. sir. The two organizations represent 
• than '• ' i of the men engaged in this service on the con- 

tinent. 

Mr. Low. I think. Mr. Chairman, thai Mi. Wickersham. the 
president of the Atlanta X- West Point a no Western Railway of 
Alabama, is chairman of the Southern Railway Association. 
1421— S. Kept. 72, 83 1 4 



50 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Mr. Gakretson. That is right. He is. 

Mr. Low. Which includes the Seaboard Ait Line and the others, 
and he was one of those who framed this bill ? 

Mr. Garretson. There is another point that I desire to call atten- 
tion to, and which I failed to touch upon until my attention was 
called to it, and that is urgency. You heard the statement made here 
this morning — but I do not want to make the suggestion exactly in 
the same sense that it was made this morning, but the urgency feature 
of it is only this. The public is usually quiescent until its interests 
are threatened, and then, in its character of neutrality or nonpar- 
tisanship, it usually gets in a wholesale condemnation by both the 
parties who threaten its peace. I have had some experience in that 
line, as I have once or twice in my life threatened its peace — but they 
denounce both the railway companies and the organizations because 
they will not settle their own differences. But the public awakes 
only when the threatening is right at hand. 

The urgency of the situation is this: You will remember, a year 
and a half or two years ago, when interruption of traffic was threat- 
ened out of the engineers' attempting to gain an increase in wage, the 
public took great interest for a few minutes. The minute the agree- 
ment for arbitration was signed the public lost interest. Following 
that the firemen were confronted with the same condition, and again 
the public awoke. I am drawing attention to the fact that the public 
is due for another awakening within two weeks. The conductors 
and trainmen on 54 lines of railway, covering the eastern territory, 
whose boundaries you heard described this morning — every line of 
prominence, in other words, upon the New England seaboard to 
Chicago, north of the Ohio River, between there and the Lakes — 
the conductors and trainmen representing 80,000 men in those prop- 
erties have disagreed with a committee of 10 or 15 general managers 
representing all those properties, and have failed of a settlement. 
Failing earlier to settle, we made a proposition, square toed, that we 
would arbitrate the proposition in exactly the same way as those 
propositions that have been disposed of with regard to the engineers 
and firemen, that we would arbitrate it under the now Erdman Act. 
Absolute refusal was all that was received therein. 

Those men are being voted as to whether or not they will return 
to the service of those companies. That vote is returnable on the 1st 
dav of July. Immediately following that, on the 2d and 3d, there 
will be a final conference between the representatives of those men 
and the representatives of the railway companies, and it might readily 
constitute urgency. 

Mr. Webb. Have you any assurances from those railroads that if 
this bill should become a law they will take advantage of it and settle 
the differences? 

Mr. Garretson. I have not. I desire to convey no false impression. 
Bear in mind that in the refusal to arbitrate under the present Erd- 
man Act there was no reference whatever to a modification of the 
bill. 

Senator Pomerene. You made a statement awhile ago that under 
this bill, if employers and employees should both fail to invoke the 
provisions of it, that then the mediators might tender their services. 
There is no obligation on the part of either to accept this invitation, 
is there ? 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 51 

Mr. Garretson. There is not, but T will say this to you, Senator, 
that there has never been a refusal. Doctor, in the northwest, did 

they refuse 1 

Dr. Xeill. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Garretson. I want to correct that, and say that there has 
never been but one instance where it was refused. I will try, from 
my own experience, to show you what sometimes takes place. Not 
many years since one of the Large railway systems in the eastern 

territory. Mr. Lee. Mr. . and myself were engaged in a wage 

contest. At a certain stage, when it came to a point where traffic 
was threatened, a high officer of that property made the proposition 
to us, " Will you join me in a request for mediators? " If you know 
anything of men. I know you realize that sometimes a condition will 
exist where even the courteous entertainment of a proposition like 
that jeopardizes control over those men. I refused and so did Mr. 
Lee. 

Senator Pomekene. The fact remains that while both parties are 
here urging this Legislation, neither one would be in a position to keep 
the favor of the public if they would refuse to accept this provision. 

Mr. Garretson. They would undoubtedly bring condemnation on 
their heads in a greater or lesser decree. There is no doubt about 
that. The proviso that you refer to was the authorization of a 
mediator to tender his services. There is no wiser amendment em- 
bodied in the entire lot than that. 

The Chairman. Mr; Garretson, it has been suggested that on line 
10. page 13, about the middle of the sentence, that the words "not 
mere than" should be stricken out. 

Mr. Low. And shall also designate two other officials of the Gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. Garretson. You mean that portion of the section providing 
that " the President shall also designate not more than two other 
officials of the Government " ! 

The Chairman. Yes. The suggestion is that those words "not 
more than " should be stricken out. 

Mr. Garretson. So as to make it read " Shall designate two other 
officials n '. 

The Chairman. Two other officials 

Mr. Garretson. Well, to tell you the truth, that is one of the minor 
matters that I know little underlying the reason for beyond the fact 
that it was desired that three should be available, more especially. I 
think, in the appointment of arbitrators — in designating the arbi- 
trators in the event of failure to agree. 

The Chairman. Yon can not designate three under this section. 

Mr. Garretson. No; but the commissioner himself constitutes the 
third. These are the two other officials that are designated to act 
with him. the commissioner and two others constituting an odd 
number. 

Mr. Low. T do not think there would be any objection to the omis- 
si( n of the word- " not more ilniii." so that the President could ap- 
point two. 

Mr. Garretson. There is nothing L r <'nnane in it, really. 

The Chairman. You chink there i- no objection to l<;i \ i mi- out 
those word- j 



52 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Mr. Gabeetson. As far as I am personally concerned, I do not see 
that there would be. It would simply make the appointment of two 
partisans. 

The Chairman. In other words, it could be one or two. 

Mr. Gabeetson. It could be one or two as it stands. I would just 
as lief have it absolutely two, personally speaking. 

Mr. McCoy. What has been suggested as the advantage of the 
change ? 

The Chaieman. Will you state that, Mr. Low? 

Mr. McCoy. You, Mr. Chairman, said that somebody had sug- 
gested striking those words out. What did they suggest would be 
the advantage of striking them out? 

The Chaieman. I do not recall. It was suggested during the re- 
cess by some of the gentlemen who were in the room and who had 
taken part in the shaping of this bill. 

Mr. Gabeetson. Really it is immaterial, it seems to me, in any 
event. 

Mr. Low. I suppose the only advantage in making it two would 
be that there would be a board of three to appoint disinterested arbi- 
trators. I think it is quite immaterial whether it is changed or left 
as it is. I do not think there would be any objection to the change, 
if the committee should prefer that. 

The Chairman. I simply wished to get the sense of the gentlemen 
who framed the bill. I would like their views regarding it before 
making any change. 

Mr. Low. I think it has been rather assumed that there would be 
a board of three, the President to appoint two, and in that sense 
the omission would carry out what has been the expectation. If it 
is put in this way, it would simply leave the President a little more 
leeway in his action, so that if he preferred to appoint only one he 
could appoint only one. But I think the expectation has been on all 
sides that he would appoint two, and for that reason it is perhaps 
better to leave it out. 

(Mr. Garretson was thereupon excused.) 

STATEMENT OF W. W. ATTERBURY, VICE PRESIDENT PENNSYL- 
VANIA RAILROAD. 

Mr. Attebbuey. Mr. Chairman, I have but little to add to what 
has already been said. I simply desire to emphasize the urgency of 
the situation and the necessity for this legislation, if possible, to be 
put through at the present session of Congress. 

Early in the year we had a situation as between the firemen and 
the railroads, and Judge Knapp, I think, knows quite well how 
close to the breaking point it came, and the railroads finally, in defer- 
ence to public opinion, gave in, and the whole subject was submitted 
to arbitration under the Erdman Act. 

There are some 90,000 men employed in the train service to-day 
on the 54 railroads that are having a strike vote. That vote will be 
in the hands of their committeemen on July 1. It will be before the 
conference committee inside of the first week in July, and I have no 
doubt at all but what the railroads will again take the position that 
they can not arbitrate under the Erdman Act.^ The 90,000 men, 
whom I judge are in this movement, are drawing something like 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES ANP EMPLOYEES. 53 

svi "i.OOO.OOO a year, which, at 1 per cent, is $900,000 a year, and as 
the fulfillment of the Erdman Act is finally dependent upon the 
opinion of one man. it is the judgment of the railroads that that is 

too much to leave to one man. They have asked for a modification 
of the Erdman Act. and while there has been a difference ot : opinion 
among the railroads themselves, yet there has been a difference of 
opinion among labor leader- themselves. The present modification, 

as proposed, is in a measure a compromise, and yet it is one that all 
parties have been willing to accept in lieu of the existing Erdman 
Act. 

The Erdman An has been successful for the last five or six years, 
but it is due to the personal equation of Messrs. Knapp and Neill. 
Their handling of all the controversies that have been submitted to 
them has been of such an impartial and fair character that they have 
gained the respect not only of the railroads but of the employees of 
the railroads. We recognize that the personnel can not always con- 
tinue. As in the ease of the firemen, we stood there for a few days 
with pra< tically nobody to represent the public through the organiza- 
tion of the Erdman Act. We do not want that situation to occur 
again, and this. I think, pttts the whole thing in shape so that there 
never can any contingency arise where there shall not be men on the 
ground to represent the Government, and that in case of arbitration 
the public is given the opportunity to be represented by more than 
one man. 

I can only urge that speedy action be taken, so as to make this avail- 
able, if possible, for the emergency that I am sure wall arise the early 
part of July. I can hardly speak with authority for all the railroads, 
but I can say for the Pennsylvania Railroad, which probably will 
represent some '25.000 of the men in interest, that it will be very glad 
to submit the points at issue now between the conductors and train- 
men to a board constituted as otttlined in accordance with this pro- 
posed act. 

Mr. Low. And you think that can be taken for granted as to all 
presidents who have taken part in this bill? Of course, it was im- 
possible to confer with every railroad. 

Senator Pomerene. Your statement indicates, of course, that you 
desire this bill passed. Do you know of any objections that are being 
Urged against this bill by any of the railroad companies? 

Mr. Atterbury. I have not heard one word whatever in the way 
of objection to this bill. I have my own opinion, and we all have our 
opinions, as to the make-up of the bill. But I want to say, frankly, 
that I am satisfied to get what we are getting here. Now, after a 
few years* experience with this, both sides, or all sides, may be again 
desiring a modification, in which event we will be very glad to come 
again and request a further modification if experience should prove 
its necessity. 

Senator Pomerene. Do you know of any serious objections that 
are being urged on the part of any of the employees against this bill? 

Mr. ATTERBtRv. None whatever. 

Senator Pomerene. So that. >o far as you now know, if this bill 
should become the law. both parties would be willing to accept its 
provisions? 

Mi*. Attebbuby. Although I am net speaking by authority, it is 
my belief and my opinion that if tin- bill were to become a law the 



54 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

railroads in the eastern territory would accept arbitration under this, 
when they will not accept arbitration under the present Erdman Act. 

Senator Pomerene. I simply wanted the record to show who was 
disposed to have any objections, if there were any. 

Mr. Atterbury. I speak with authority for our own railroad. I 
am simply giving my opinion for the other roads. 

Senator Pomerene. I wanted to leave as little excuse as possible 
for people hereafter, if this should become a law, to not accept its 
provisions. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, I think this bill was drafted originally 
by Judge Knapp and Dr. Neill, who have had the personal adminis- 
tration of the Erdman law as representing the Government. As you 
have heard from Mr. Garretson, it was discussed afterwards at a 
meeting at which most of these gentlemen were present. I think if 
Dr. Neill can be heard now we would get full and clear information 
in regard to the measure and the reasons for its present form. 

The Chairman. The committee will be glad to hear Dr. Neill. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES P. NEILL, FORMERLY COMMIS- 
SIONER OF LABOR. 

Dr. Neill. Mr. Chairman, in regard to this bill I might say that 
I have taken part^with, I think, one exception, in every mediation 
proceeding since the act was first invoked, until the 1st of last 
Februar}^. 

While the bill is the result of an emergency, I might say that before 
this emergency arose both railroad managers and railroad brother- 
hood representatives had frequently discussed with Mr. Knapp and 
myself the defects in the present law, and as far back as three years 
ago we began, in individual conferences with managers and repre- 
sentatives of the organizations and without calling any meetings, 
to draft a new bill. At the time when a coal strike was threatened 
a year ago last April, a bill was introduced in the House extending 
the existing Erdman law to include coal mines. The bill was referred 
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and Mr. 
Knapp and I were asked to appear before the committee, and we 
said to them that if it was going to be extended at all the machinery 
would have to be changed, because the two men who had these 
duties imposed on them, in addition to their other duties, could not 
possibly do the work. We were then asked if we would draft a bill, 
and we drafted a bill substantially the same as the present bill. 
Nothing came of it at the time. The threatened strike was averted 
and no crisis arose. But about a year ago, in April, 1912, a crisis did 
arise — a very critical situation arose in the eastern territorj^. The 
engineers on every mile of railroad practically from Chicago to the 
Atlantic Ocean and north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad pre- 
sented demands to those railroads which the railroads refused to 
grant. After negotiations lasting a considerable time, the engineers 
served an ultimatum on the roads that unless they either conceded 
their demand or made a counter proposition that they could con- 
sider, they would go out of the service, and I think there was only 
48 hours left. 

At that time, because of the fact that each side felt that any request 
made for mediation might be a practical disadvantage to the side 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 55 

making the request, neither side was willing to invoke the Law; and 
Judge Knapp and myself, in view of the critical situation with a 

strike possibly only 48 hours off, which would paralyze the eastern 
territory, took it upon ourselves to tender our friendly offices, for 
which we had no authority whatever in law. Those offices were ac- 
cepted, and we then took up the mediation of the dispute. It reached 
a point where both sides expressed an entire willingness to arbitrate, 
but the engineers 3 committee was still unwilling to arbitrate except 
under the Erdman law. The railroads were utterly unwilling to 
arbitrate a case as important as that with only one disinterested arbi- 
trator — and I might explain there, to make the matter clearer, that 
in the six years past it has been invariably the case that the arbitrator 
appointed by the men would be a representative from their own or- 
ganization; their own official. The arbitrator appointed by the 
railroad would probably be their own general manager, so that in 
effect the board consisted — and I am not saying this in an offensive 
sense — of two advocates and an umpire. Personally T think that was 
the only thing they could have done. I think it is absolutely essen- 
tial that in deliberations after the hearings are closed there should be 
representatives who knew exactly the result of this or that particular 
decision because their contracts are extremely complicated and an 
unfortunate decision of the board unfamiliar with the practical de- 
tails of their contract might so upset the workings of the organiza- 
tions of the railroads as to be simply disastrous. 

The railroad- were unwilling utterly to arbitrate under the Erd- 
man law. Mr. Knapp and myself then brought every possible pres- 
sure <>n Mr. Stone and his committee, and finally induced them, much 
against their own judgment, but still out of regard for the public 
interests that would be affected disastrously by the strike, to accept 
another form of arbitration outside of the Erdman law. That set- 
tled that case, but shortly after an identical situation arose with the 
firemen. Again the firemen expressed a willingness to arbitrate un- 
der the Erdman law and the railroads again declined utterly to con- 
sider that law on account of the fact of their being a board of only 
three. As a result of the engineers' arbitration the firemen were 
not willing to make the concession which the engineers made. They 
felt that their organization would not sustain the committee if the 
committee took it upon itself again to submit to arbitration outside 
of the Erdman law. The committee said to us time and again. " We 
do not care whether it i- a board of five or six or seven or any num- 
ber: we will accept any board that is provided by law. so that we 
will have arbitration under sanction of law." The railroads said, 
• We would prefer the sanction of law ourselves, but we will not 
arbitrate with a board of three constituted as provided in the present 
law." 

In this instance the railroads, in consideration of the disaster that 
would result to the public, finally agreed to accept the board of 
three under the Erdman law. Thus in one case the engineers con- 
i the railroad-' demands and operated outride of the law. In 
the other case the road- yielded to the firemen and arbitrated within 
the law. The road- say they will not again arbitrate under the 
present law and the men say they will not again go outside of the 
law. 



56 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

As has been explained to you, on the 1st of the next month the 
situation that has arisen twice will arise again, and I may say frankly 
that I think Mr. Carter and the firemen were absolutely right in 
refusing to go outside of the law, but I think the roads were equally 
right to refuse to arbitrate under the law. If I represented the men, 
I would not arbitrate outside of the sanction of the law, and if I 
were the railroads I would not submit to the arbitration of a board 
of three, as provided in the present law. 

Mr. Knapp and myself have had imposed upon us the responsibility, 
I believe, of naming every arbitrator who has been named under 
this law since the beginning, with probably one exception. We have 
felt strongly the defect in the law of allowing only one arbitrator. 
There has been no duty that we have been called upon to perform 
that has been the burden to us or worried us like the appointment of 
the third arbitrator. It is not like a law case, because there the judge 
is limited by the law. Here is a case where the personal whim or 
the personal idiosyncrasy of the arbitrator has perfectly free play. 
There is no limit. He can do whatever he wants to do. and nothing 
can restrict him. But no matter how good a man he may be, no 
matter how much we may believe in him, we do not know what 
idiosyncrasy he may have or what kind of an award he may give, 
and we realize that we. in a sense, will be held responsible for the 
arbitrator decision. 

I have the feeling that if } 7 ou appoint two or three men you dis- 
tribute your risk. In other words, you are pretty sure that out of 
two men or three men you will get something near to what represents 
the common-sense viewpoint. We could not be sure of that with one. 
We are not likely to get two men who have the same peculiar idio- 
syncrasies 

After this crisis arose last year the Civic Federation took the mat- 
ter up, realizing that it was a very critical situation that ought not to 
have arisen, and they took up this matter and got a committee rep- 
resenting, as you have seen here this morning, a number of roads 
and the brotherhoods concerned. Mr. Knapp and myself also served 
on the committee. This bill was the result of the deliberation of that 
committee, and it represents the experience of the last seven years 
under the law. 

A question was asked by Senator Pomerene if there was any objec- 
tion to this bill. There are minor objections to nearly every provi- 
sion ; that is, each one of us would have preferred some slight modi- 
fication in this, that, or the other feature. 

Senator Pomerene. I had in mind any fundamental objection. 

Dr. Neill. Some thought there should be as many as nine; some 
thought that five were enough, but this represents what all have 
agreed to as a fair and satisfactory bill, by and large. 

1 1 might make this further statement : The question was raised this 
morning with regard to an odd number of arbitrators. In the first 
place, that is one matter that could not be agreed upon by the com- 
mittee. The committee did agree to a board of six, but it was sug- 
gested that they might deadlock. There is no more possibility of 
their deadlocking than a board of seven or a board of three. It 
takes a majority' to make an award. Now, under the board of three 
the railroads have appointed one man, who has usually been general 
manager of the road. The organization appointed one man, who 



ARBITBATIOX BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 57 

ordinarily has been an officer of the organization. A third man has 
been appointed by Mr. Knapp and myself under the act. You can get 
a deadlock now. You might have three of them deadlocked. If you 

seven, and the throe who represent the public framed an award 
which was unsatisfactory to each side, the other four may refuse to 
join them. 

But I < ] .o not believe it is a practical possibility that the six would 
deadlock. Each side is equally interested in getting a solution. 
With the two neutral arbitrators you could very easily frame a propo- 
ii which (iic or the other side would have to come over to. If 
they can not get two over, they probably can not act one over, be- 
cause the two representing each side would be partisan, and it is 
going to be a- easy io act two as one. So that speaking with intimate 
knowledge of the workings o\' the present law. I do not think a pos- 
sibility of a deadlock with six is a matter of any consequence. I think 
that the j revision to appoint an umpire would be a very dangerous 
provision in this case. I think the original arbitrators Avould not 
then try to get together. Suppose they found they were somewhat 
wide apart. If they are all working for a settlement, they will 
peach an agreement between them, elves, the six of them, which is 
one likely to be satisfactory to both sides, although it may not be 
all that either side wants. But with an umpire, as Mr. Garretson said, 
and very well said, they will take a "gamble on it." They will say, 
•• We won't accept this compromise: we will take a gamble by bring- 
ing in an umpire," and I think by adding an umpire you would 
simply accentuate the possibility of difference and prevent them 
from harmonizing their differences and coming together with a 
settlement which would be a fair settlement. 

I might add that this bill is practically the present Erdman law 
with only two serious modifications. There are a number of minor 
modifications that have been referred to, but there are only two 
serious changes as far as the principle of the act is concerned. The 
first fundamental change is the one allowing a board of six instead 
of a board of three. The second is one that changes the personnel. It 
changes the nature of the board — and I am very glad that Secretary 
Wilson has come into the room, because this is a matter upon which I 
am glad to have him present while the discussion takes place. 

Xow. there is less change there than there really seems to be. As 
Mr. Garretson said, we have discussed all the morning the arbitration 
feature of the act. The arbitration feature of the act was the least 
important feature. Of the sixty-odd cases which have been handled 
under the act probably three-fourths of them have been settled 
through mediation, and that will be the experience in the future. 
Only one out of seven or eight has gone into arbitration, and of those 
that went to arbitration, many of them have had three-fourths of the 
points in dispute settled by mediation before the arbitration took 
place. 

Xow. the present bill create- ;i separate commissioner to handle the 
work. The present law provided originally that the chairman of 
the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of Labor 
should, upon the request of either side to the controversy, act as 
mediators and try to bring about a friendly settlement, and if unsuc- 



58 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

cessfnl to try to bring about an arbitration under the terms of this 
act. 

The question was asked me this morning why in drafting this bill 
this work was taken out from under the department. That work 
was never really under any department. The law says the chairman 
of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Commissioner of 
Labor shall act. From the first time the law came in operation I 
have been the Commissioner of Labor,, and I have served under three 
Secretaries. I have taken up with each of them the question of his 
understanding of the Erdman law, and his understanding and mine 
agreed, that the Commissioner of Labor was designated by the law 
to serve on a board entirely independently of the Secretary of Com- 
merce and Labor, and had it been otherwise I would have refused 
to serve, for the reason that no man can get out that kind of work 
and assume the responsibility that he has to assume — and perhaps 
here I had better explain that it is inevitable in carrying on this 
work that the two sides shall never meet together. The mediator 
meets one side and then the other. 

It is understood always that if the mediation fails there is a 
possibility or probability of arbitration. Each side, realizing that, 
is reluctant to make any offers. Very often the mediation is brought 
about for that very reason. In their direct negotiations prior to invok- 
ing mediation each side feels if it begins to waver and make offers that 
probably instead of bringing about a settlement it will block a set- 
tlement, because the other side will feel it is weakening, and if the 
second side stiffens up it will win out. So each side is jockeying for 
position. We realize that if we sat with them together the situation 
would continue. So we adopted this plan — and to that I attribute 
the entire success of the work — to meet them separately. We say 
to them, Whatever offer you make to us will never be made known 
to the other side unless your mutual concessions bring you into agree- 
ment. So if we withdraw from the mediation without effecting a 
settlement and you go to arbitration, neither side has prejudiced its 
case in the slightest. 

We talk over the differences with the two sides, and up to the very 
end neither side has an idea as to just what the other side is willing 
to do, but we keep hammering and hammering until they will make 
this concession and that concession, and as they make concessions we 
know how near they are to coming together. 

That method is absolutely essential to carrying on the work, and 
yet it places in the hands of mediators a very large power in direct- 
ing the character of settlement, and it places upon them a very, very 
heavy responsibility. You are meeting two groups of men who have 
sometimes been in session weeks and weeks, both sides — speaking in 
the vernacular — " seeing red." The situation is very tense. Their 
feelings are running high, and there is a high nervous tension. They 
are very suspicious. They are determined. It requires extreme 
patience and cool and quick judgment to handle cases, and very often 
you may find, as a result of five minutes' talk, a sudden change has 
taken place, the attitude of one or the other side has shifted, and you 
will find that to make a given settlement is hopeless. You carry a 
very heavy responsibility, and I, for one, would not try to work one 
second unless I were independent. If I were not absolutely free to 
handle that case as I felt necessary without responsibility to anybody, 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 59 

1 would not undertake the work, and no man who does undertake it 
uan succeed except under those conditions. 

Now. more than that— and I say this with the utmost respect, not 
only for Secretary Wilson, Inn for every Secretary under whom I 
have served, and 1 have served under Secretary Metcalf, Secretary 
Straus-, and Secretary Nagel, and for a short time under Secretary 
Wilson— I believe that that work must be made independent for 
another reason, and perhaps it is a more important reason than the 
one I gave first: The law is not worth the paper it is printed on if 
neither of the parties invoke it. and they will not use it if there is 
the slightest suspicion that any political consideration is going to 
play a part in the settlement .■-,,, , i 

Now. I want to go on record as saying emphatically that there has 
never been a Secretary under whom I have served who would be 
swayed in the slightest by any political consideration in the appoint- 
ment of arbitrators, hut" I am willing to say, just as emphatically, 
that frequently in case- occurring just on the eye of a political cam- 
paign you could not convince one or the other side that political con- 
siderations had not played a part in the selection of the umpire, 
where that selection is made by men holding positions bearing the 
relation to partisan politics that Cabinet positions do. 

I want to <ro further and say more than that, it is not a fair burden 
to put upon the Secretary. I have had to appoint arbitrators and I 
know how the appointer 'feels. Assume the appointment of an arbi- 
trator is iroino; to be made just preceding election. Assume a case in- 
volving fifty or sixty thousand men. and their affiliation and friend- 
ships mean" half a ' million more. There is likely to be political 
ssure brought on him to appoint arbitrators who will decide/* the 
right way," because, as I said a while ago— and I think Mr. Knapp 
will sustain me in it— right or wrong, a decision of the arbitrators 
falls back upon the shoulders of those appointing him. and if the 
•etary appoints a man— a perfectly fair man who makes an award 
favorable to either side— the side that loses would, in a measure, hold 
him responsible. I do not believe that anyone who has to consider 
partisan politic- should have anything to do with the handling of 
these cases or the naming of the arbitrators. 

On that account I have advocated protecting the position of com- 
moner of mediation so there would be no question of its inde- 
pendence, and T feel this so strongly that I believe the position of 
the mediators should be for a term of 7 or 10 years and removable 
only by impeachment. I will go still further and say Hud \ have 
n embarrassed in cases by the open suggestion that one party 
was reluctant to have me take part in the naming of arbitrators for 
fear that the President or Secretary might attempt to influence my 
action, because I was not independent in my position. These are 
things that have actually happened, and I believe that there is noth- 
ing in which the suspicion of politics is as deadly to the success of 
work as it is in mutters of this kind. 
The question was asked this morning why these other two were to 
be in the Federal service. It was felt that the commission oughl to 
as inexpensive as possible, There is no occasion for three men 
^ittino- around with their services called for probably only once in 
two or three months, but the work has developed to the point where 
it is impossible f<»r any one man to occupy the position of Commis- 



60 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

sioner of Labor and continue that work. I continued it until I had a 
complete breakdown in health. After that time I had at times prac- 
tically to abandon the Bureau of Labor. It was unfair to me to hold 
me responsible for a bureau which I sometimes did not see for more 
than 30 days in a period of four or live months. From the 15th of 
last September until the 1st of February I had less than three weeks 
in the Bureau of Labor. Now, that is unfair to the bureau and it is 
unfair to the Commissioner of Labor. More than that, it is unfair to 
this work. There is enough work to occupy one man busily the entire 
time. Between the mediation cases there is a large amount of work 
that has to be done, and with this new provision for compelling 
mediators to give opinions the work will increase very largely. I 
suppose there was hardly a month, and in later years there was hardly 
a week, when we did not get a letter from some railroad or from some 
organization sometimes referring to an agreement entered into six or 
eight months before through the mediators asking if we would give 
our interpretation of this or that rule. There would some differ- 
ence of opinion arise between the manager and the men on a ques- 
tion, and one or the other side would write to us for our opinion. 
That has very much increased the work, and the idea was that the 
commissioner of mediation and conciliation could probably alone 
handle one-half the cases. The other member, or two members, 
would probably be called upon very seldom except when it came to 
a question of appointing arbitrators, and they would take part in 
that, but that takes very little time. So there is very little need of 
more than one man taking his entire time for it. The other men 
could continue their work on other lines and not serve until called 
upon. 

There is another matter that Judge Knapp referred to this morn- 
ing, and it is of extreme importance, I believe, and it is this : A com- 
mission or board of that character would have more standing and 
more weight with the two parties than a board appointed especially 
for the purpose. In other words, if it should happen that the other 
two members were one of them the presiding judge of the Court of 
Commerce with one the Secretary of Labor or Assistant Secretary of 
Labor they would carry into that work the prestige of their other 
positions, and that would be a very important item in their influence 
in affecting a settlement. I think, so fas as possible, the commission 
should not be a commission entirely of men appointed for that work. 
It should continue as long as possible to have men on it appointed 
for other purposes and carrying into the work the weight of their 
other positions. 

There is a provision for an assistant commissioner. As I said, 
this work after awhile gets to be extremely technical work. If you 
have ever seen a contract between a railroad company and one of its 
organizations, you will realize how important it is. There may be 
150 sections, regulating every detail of employment with the greatest 
minuteness. Often those rules are so put together that if you change 
one without knowing the whole situation you may simply throw out 
of gear half a dozen others. Not only that, but in discussing it, 
unless the man is very familiar with that work, he can not discuss 
with any intelligence the questions with the two sides. And as he 
sits with one side and then with the other, if he is not thoroughly 
familiar with it, not understanding the matter thoroughly, he thinks 



ARBITRATION BETWEE2S EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 61 

they are both in agreement, and then when he comes to bring them 
together he finds they are Dot in agreement at all, that through igno- 
rance of the details lie has been mistaken entirely, ami he is then in 
a worse situation than he was in the beginning. There they feel that 
he lias been densely ignorant or they feel he has been a little disin- 
genuous, ami where either suspicion creeps in the work is naturally 
very much embarrassed. 

The idea was that there should be an assistant commissioner, who 
shon Id go into these eases with the commissioner often enough to 
know the men intimately that he had to meet year in and year out, 
so that whenever an experienced and well-trained man drops out 
his understudy is ready to go in and take his place. As it is now. I 
have felt compelled to withdraw from the work, and if Judge Knapp 
should withdraw to-morrow the result of seven years of experience — 
which is probably invaluable in the work would be lost and there 
would not be anyone with experience to take it up. Tie would have 
to begin where we began seven year- ago, and he could not begin 
there, since seven years ago we all began feeling our way along. 
Case- were simple, and if we made mistakes it was not so important. 
But now the most complicated cases are thrown into the hands of the 
mediator. Tt i< assumed they have an expert knowledge of the situa- 
tion, and if they have not got that the operation of the law is im- 
measurably interfered with. 

Tt seems to me. therefore, that it is vital that there should not only 
be ;i deputy or assistant commissioner but there should be a salary 
sufficient to attract the right kind of man. You can not take a man 
who comes in at a low salary and stays years for that salary. You 
have to attract the man. and T want to say further that for the corn- 
mi— ioner of mediation and conciliation, whose salary has been fixed 
at $7,500, I believe you require the same standard and same caliber 
of man that you require on the bench. I think the position has 
become of that importance. It was not so in the beginning, but it 
has become so. and I do not think that any salary can be fixed there 
that is too high if it will attract the right kind of man. You ought 
to pay a high enough salary to a deputy commissioner to attract a 
man who could at once step into the shoes of the commissioner, and 
on that account I believe the reduction of the salaries there would 
not bring into the work the character of work that i< required to 
make it successful. T think' the deputy should l>e appointed for the 
term a- the commissioner i- appointed for. 

The Chairman. I- that provided for? 

Dr. Xrir.r.. No, sir; it is not. It i- on page 1 1. 

Mr. Low. T would suggesl that on page 14. line 1. where the 

n is made for the assistant commissioner, a- follow-: "There 

shall also be an assistant commissioner of mediation and conciliation. 

who -hall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 

ut of the Senate, and whose -alary -hall be $5,000 per annum. " 
there should In- added, "who shall hold his office for a term of -even 

years," which is the term proposed for the commissioner. It has also 

beer, i d. although this aet doe- not propose it. that the other 

gentlemen who are added by the President to the Commission of 
Mediation and Conciliation to constitute the Board of Mediation and 

iliation. if they are called upon to render, as Judge Knapp 
and Commissioner Neill both have, additional duties in connection 



62 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

with this work, that some provision should be made for their com- 
pensation when serving in that way. 

The Chairman. What would you suggest as to that? 

Mr. Low. This act does not propose any because it was drawn by 
Judge Knapp and Mr. Neill themselves, and I think we all feel that 
the present law is defective in that sense. 

The Chairman. Dr. Neill, what would you suggest as a com- 
pensation? 

Dr. Neill. I do not know what to suggest, Mr. Chairman, unless 
there is a provision that they should, while engaged on that work, 
receive some additional compensation — ten or fifteen dollars a day, 
something of that kind. 

Judge Knapp. $20 a day. 

Dr. Neill. The time required is not long: 

Mr. Low. Judge Knapp now suggests $20 a day. 

Judge Knapp. May I say a word on that point? My dear friend, 
Dr. Neill and I have rendered this service as well as we could with- 
out any compensation beyond the salaries we received in the re- 
spective positions we have held, this service being incident to what 
was supposed to be our principal duties. We have done it under 
very burdensome conditions, taking long railroad rides and holding 
negotiations, frequently at early hours in the morning, and then re- 
turning to the work, and it was very hard to catch up with the 
regular work which in the meantime had fallen into arrears, and I 
think it is only just that any official, whatever his position or salary, 
who is called upon to perform this additional duty, so very impor- 
tant, Mr. Chairman — there is nothing bigger in this country than this 
question we are talking about to-day — ought to have some modest 
compensation for what he does in addition to the salary of his prin- 
cipal office. As Dr. Neill has said, these additional officials, together 
with the commissioner, who constitute the board, would probably 
under ordinary conditions devote only a limited part of their time 
now and then, a day or two or possibly a week or a few weeks. To 
meet that a per diem, «ay $20 a day when they are engaged in this 
service would be no more than would be consistent with fair justice. 

The Chairman. That suggestion is with reference to the Board 
of Mediation and Conciliation. 

Judge Knapp. To the two additional officials that the President 
will assign to constitute the board in connection with this com- 
mission. 

Senator Eobinson. This act contemplates the material lightening of 
the duties of those two members, and it seems to me that the argument 
in favor of compensating those two members is rather weakened by 
the fact that the principal duties are now to be performed by salaried 
officers, who are appointed under this act; and it might be that the 
necessity for compensation to the two members referred to having 
been diminished, it would lessen the popularity of the act while creat- 
ing two salaried officers where none had existed heretofore, and, 
thus lightening the duties of those two officers who are to be named 
in conjunction with them, would put into this bill a provision that 
is not there now that would require some defense. There is nothing 
in this bill now that requires any defense. The attitude of this bill is 
peculiar. This bill can be passed through either House, in my judg- 
ment, with practically no difficulty; but if you create two salaried offi- 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 63 

cere, one at $7,500 and one at $5,000, and at the same time provide for 
compensation where none has been paid and where the service has 
been so satisfactorily performed by public officers who have received 
no compensation and to whom none is to ho paid, yon write into the 
bill a provision which will Lessen its popularity, to say the least of it; 
and 1 am of the opinion that that is a very minor consideration at 
this time. If you want to treat this as an emergency measure, you 
had better leave that out of it and pass the bill without putting that 
into it. 

Judge Knapp. As far as I am personally concerned, I perfectly 
agree with the Senator. 

Senator Robinson. You can not have any interest in it, because 
your services are performed without compensation. There has never 
been a contemplation to pay yon or Dr. Neill anything, and you had 
the brunt of the whole thing. 

Judge Knapp. I never sought or desired any additional compensa- 
tion. No amount of money which Congress could reasonably pro- 
vide would be any compensation. 

Senator Robinson. I think I understand you perfectly, Judge 
Knapp. 

Judge Knapp. It has been a great gratification to me to know that 
I had. in a modest way. contributed to the peace between the railroads 
and the labor world. 

Senator Rop.insox. I want to say one thing there, if you will par- 
don me. that the only fear that I have w T ith regard to this bill is the 
fa<t that its provisions are taking out of this service necessarily the 
very two men — that personal element — which has made it so success- 
ful under the operation of the Erdman Act. The personal element of 
a mediator is always of overwhelming importance. 

Dr. Neill. This bill dees not take them out at all. 

Senator Robinson. Not of necessity; no. The President can still 
appoint anyone who remains in the service. 

Dr. Xeill. That was put in intentionally, so that the President 
could have the widest latitude of choice. But there was this objec- 
tion 

>r Robinson. The President can not go out of the public 
officials to name those two, so that whoever else is designated from 
the service can go on this commission. 

Dr. Xkit.t.. No one designated could spare the time to go on it. 
,t< r Robinson, rule— he be compensated. 

Dr. Neill. Xo compensation would pay him for that amount of 
work, and he would not do it — anyone outside. The idea was this: 
Fi r example, the bill originally provided that the chairman of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission should perform this function. 
When Judge Knapp left the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
went to the Court of Commerce, it seemed to me vital that Judge 
Knapp'- experience and acquaintance and the confidence he inspired 
made it necessary that he should continue in this work, and it was at 
my earnest solicitation that President Tafl suggested this change in 
the bill which enabled him to appoint any member of the [nterstate 
Commerce Commission or any member of the Court of Commerce 
Then he continued Judge Knapp. 

Now. there is that objection to namirg the officers in this hill. For 
example, suppose you said it should be the presiding judge of the 



64 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

Court of Commerce and suppose you said the Assistant Secretary of 
Labor. The next presiding judge in the Court of Commerce might 
be a man of extreme legal ability but unfitted for this kind of work. 
Then you have to change that law. 

I think the law should be left as elastic as possible in this respect. 
In the same way as regards the men to be named on the board with 
the commissioner of mediation and conciliation. I think the Presi- 
dent should be allowed to make it one or two, as he chooses. 

Senator Robinson. You think it ought not to be more than two ? 

Dr. Neill. That makes three altogether. If you get more than 
three it is unwieldy. You might get two men who will work in 
harmony, but three men might embarrass the situation. In that case 
I think you had better leave the two alone. I think the law should be 
left as elastic as possible, because there should be as much elasticity 
of choice as possible. 

Senator Robinson. I think that is undoubtedly true. You said 
awhile ago that most of your time during certain months had been 
directed to other duties than those connected with the Bureau of 
Labor. Do ycu mean that it was consumed in matters relating to 
mediation. 

Dr. Neill. Yes, sir. 

Senator Robinson. You did not make the direct statement. 

Dr. Neill. For illustration, I left for Norfolk about the 15th of 
September, on a mediation case. Before I had finished that Norfolk 
case another call came and I had to go on to another case, and before 
that case was finished I had a third call, and a strike actually oc- 
curred before we could go there. From the 15th of September, until 
the following February 1, when my term expired, there were less than 
30 days that I was free to devote to the Bureau of Labor. 

I want to add one more thing out of regard to the next unfortu- 
nate Commissioner of Labor, Mr. Secret ar}^. Nobody who has not 
sat through this sort of thing can tell you what it means. I have 
sat with Mr. Stone from 7 o'clock at night until 4 o'clock in the morn- 
ing — and that is the time I have felt like murder. [Laughter.] 
There have been times when the situation had become acute and delay 
was accused of prejudicing the case. A wild telegram would come 
in that railroads were employing men. Immediately the situation 
became very much complicated and very much more acute, and we 
have been in continuous conference from 9 o'clock in the morning 
until 5 o'clock the following morning, and have eaten our lunches and 
our dinners across the table, still in conference. 

Now, after you have been through that ordeal, lasting sometimes 
from three to four weeks, you come back in no condition to take up 
your work. So it is most unfair to impose those duties upon an 
official already charged with the responsibility of an important 
bureau. 

The Chairman. Dr. Neill, regarding the appropriation on line 24, 
page 12, do you think that $25,000 is a sufficient appropriation for 
expenses ? 

Dr. Neill, Oh, it is an abundance if there are no arbitrations. If 
there are arbitrations, there is no telling what the expense might be, 
but as Congress is usually in session [laughter] — I mean where the 
sessions are not very long we can tell toward the end of the session 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 65 

whether there would be any requirement for any more, and that could 
be provided. 

Judge Knapp. On that point permit me to say this: It is obvious 
upon the face of the bill that it is necessary to make an aggregate 
appropriation of $25,000. Half of that is taken for salaries of the 
commissioner and his assistant. Now, to that must be added at least 
cilice rent, unless possibly there is some Government building in 
which this commission could establish itself; one or two clerks, steno- 
graphic clerks, supplies, and miscellaneous expenses, and you will. 
see that you have not more than $S.000 or $9,000 left for the ex- 
penses. 

The Chairman. What sum do you think ought to be provided? 

Judge Knafp. I would double it. As far as this point is con- 
cerned, of whether the President should be required to appoint two or, 
as the bill now reads. " not more than two,'' while I was disposed 
myself to favor the change and make the two obligatory, upon fur- 
ther reflection I am perfectly content to leave it as it is drafted, 
to the judgment of the President and the exigencies of the case, so 
that the board might be constituted of two at the outside, and not 
increased unless occasion should arise. 

The Chairman. It can not be increased. 

Judge Knafp. You could add another, making three. 

The Chairman. You will observe that it says " not more than two 
other officers."' 

Dr. Xeill. Judge Knapp's idea is that he could appoint not more 
than one 

The Chairman. Then, all he could do would be to appoint one 
other. 

Dr. Xeill. And afterwards he could enlarge it to two, and make it 
three, if he saw fit. but at the beginning only two. 

Judge Kxapp. In other words, your board would be constituted 
and established by the appointment of the commissioner of mediation 
and conciliation and by the designation by the President of one other 
official, and then leave it to his judgment as to whether he shall ap- 
point a second one or leave it a board of two until circumstances 
might arise which would make it proper to add to them. 

Senator Robinson. But in no case limiting him to the appoint- 
ment of two in addition to the commissioner? 

Judge Kxapp. Yes. sir. So I am content to leave the bill just as 
it is. 

^ nator Pombrene. Doctor, is it your understanding that under 
this bill an award could be made by a majority of the arbitrators? 

Dr. Xf.ill. That was so intended, and I think the language sq 
-tntes. 

Senator Pombrene. T have not seen that language in the bill. I 
have not read it over in its entirety. 

Dr. Xi.tll. I might explain one peculiarity of this lull. My under- 
>tandinL r is — and I am not a lawyer, and therefore I may be astray 
on this — but my understanding was. in the original bill, there were 
certain things that ( did not have the power to do. so they 

put it in this way. They said, " If you care to use the machinery the 
Government offers you. you ran use it only after you put into that 
agreement certain things." That was provided for. They must 

1421— S. Rept. 72. 63-1 5 



66 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

agree to certain things before they could use this law and have the 
expenses met, and then the enforcement of the law becomes the en- 
forcement of a contract obligation. 

Senator Pomerene. And the idea is that they can provide that a 
majority of the arbitrators can make an award. 

Dr. Neill. Yes; that is one of the provisions. 

Senator Pomerene. Yes; it is paragraph 6. 

Dr. Neill. That is made one of the stipulations. They must put 
that in the contract. 

Senator Pomerene. There is another matter that I wanted to ask 
you about. You have discussed it at some length. You, of course, 
assume the possibility that this board may be a tie when it comes 
to the matter of making an award ? 

Dr. Neill. Yes. 

Senator Pomerene. What solution would you have for that situ- 
ation ? 

Dr. Neill. Simply the force of events. They could not stay a tie 
in this way, Mr. Senator. Any number can tie. That is, you could 
possibly not get a majority for any one proposition. Suppose you 
had 9. Very often in these cases they have 10 or 15 or even 20 
questions involved. It is just as likely you would get 9 men who 
could not agree on any 2 of them, and if you have 6, I think this 

Senator Pomerene. According to the doctrine of chances you 
would be more likely to have a majority award with seven or an odd 
number than you would with an even number. 

Dr. Neill. I think this is the way it will work out. I am speaking 
now, you may say, from an intimate knowledge of the actual work- 
ings of these boards. It will follow, I think, that the employees will 
appoint two members who will be out-and-out partisans, the railroad 
managers will appoint two of their number who will likewise be 
out-and-out partisans, and the other two neutrals can force any set- 
tlement they want. If one pair say, " We can not agree with what 
you are offering," the neutrals will say, "All right, we will agree 
with the two men over there." Those two men have the control. 
You could not any more get one than you could two. The organiza- 
tion men will stand together and the representatives of the roads 
will stand together. If you had a board of seven there would still 
be a minority, because if those two men could get one of the others 
over they will get both over. 

Mr. Low. The United States and Great Britain adopted an even 
number of arbitrators in the Alaska boundary dispute, and also in 
the fisheries dispute, and yet an award was made in both cases, 
because the public necessity for the solution was so great. 

Senator Pomerene. Doctor, while that is possible, you must also 
recognize the possibility that these men may evenly divide, and I 
think the common experience of mankind indicates that in courts 
where there is an even number of judges there is ordinarily a pro- 
vision to the effect in the higher courts that the judgment of the 
lower courts may be affirmed or that the side on which the chief 
justice may cast his opinion will prevail. That differs in different 
States. All court jurisprudence recognizes the possibility that the 
judges may evenly divide. It does seem to me that while we are 
on this proposition — I do not know what should be done, but it 
does seem to me that there might be a provision here whereby this 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 67 

should be resubmitted to another board of arbitrators, or possibly 
you have a commissioner of mediation here, and if the others can not 
agree he might be called in. I simply oiler that as a suggestion. It 
does seem to me that the statute is lame when you leave the pos- 
sibility here that they may evenly divide with no means of adjusting 
it under the law. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, that has been considered, but we could 
gejl an agreement of everybody on six. We could not get it on seven. 
We could get it perhaps on nine, but I think both parties to the 
controversy feel that is too large a board to be really useful. The 
arbitration under this act must be voluntary, anyway. We can not 
make it compulsory if we want to. and I think nobodv wants to. We 
have to trusi to voluntary arbitration, and therefore it is much 
better, it seems to me. to pass the act in the form in which those 
who are expecting to use it are willing to use it. than perhaps to 
change it and make it unwelcome to one side or both. 

The Chairman. That matter was fully considered and discussed 
by your committee? 

Mr. Tow. Yes. 

Senator Robinson. If you will pardon this suggestion, it was dis- 
closed this morning that the number six in this connection has this 
significance — the necessity for an increase in the number is clearly 
disclosed in some cases, and it was desired that the two parties to 
the usual controversy, the railroads, and their employees and the 
public, should have an equal representation, and that was the basis 
upon which the agreement was reached. 

Senator Pomerene. I think that is a very good reason for provid- 
ing for an increased number. There is not any doubt about it. 

Dr. \kiix. Senator. I should like to make this one suggestion, that 
anyone who ha- not sat through these mediation cases can not have 
any conception of the extent to which public opinion influences the 
two side-. We have seen cases in which the railroads gave up some- 
thing which they felt was their undoubted right. When it came to 
the final clash they said. ; * We do not dare to go before the public 
letting the matter break on that one point." The organizations have 
done the same thing. I have seen Mr. Stone here in one case accept 
ttlement that almost took his heart ottt by the roots, solely be- 
cause it involved every mile of railroad territory in the West, in the 
month of December, and he was not willing to accept the responsi- 
bility before the public of precipitating a strike. It is on that feel- 
ing that I feel there is not the slightest chance that those boards will 
finally dare let a big issue of that kind come to a disagreement. 

Senator Pomerene. That is open to this objection, in my judg- 
ment, that you are forcing one man against perhaps what may be his 
5t judgl 10 the facts and the rights of the parties to the 

controversy. You are making him subject absolutely to public opin- 
ion, and speaking from my own experience where a courl is composed 
of t ; mberSj and one judg nt and counsel agree to try 

the case with two judges —it may be a long appeal case, and it takes 
uple of week- to try it they differ in their judgment and it is 
declared a mi-trial, and you have got to retry it. your entire work 
_ . That is the thing T seek to avoid. 

3Bi ry. Would there he any advantage in lodging the 
power somewhere to reduce the number six to threes 



68 ARBITBATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Dr. Neill. They have that choice now. They can choose six or 
three. 

Senator Saulsbury. Suppose you have six men forming a dead- 
lock, would there be any merit in reducing the six to three ? 

Dr. Neill. Senator, I believe this, if you make any change in that 
number, six, or that method of constituting the committee, you will 
raise an unalterable opposition. 

Senator Saulsbury. I do not mean as the bill as drawn. I mean, 
as an arbitration occurs it is found there is a deadlock in the six, 
then would there be any merit in the suggestion in that case that 
the number might be reduced to three by the power lodged in the 
President ? 

Dr. Neill. No; I do not think they would agree to that. When 
they reached that point they would be more determined than ever 
not to accept the change. 

Senator Robinson. That would tend to make disagreement between 
the six ? 

Dr. Neill. That is possible. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore & Ohio 
Railroad is here, and Mr. Stone, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive 
Engineers, and also Mr. Post, representing the president of the 
Railway Business Association, which has taken great interest in 
having some amendments to this act. I would ask Mr. Willard to 
speak next, unless the Secretary of Labor will do so. 

The Senator from Ohio asked this afternoon whether there had 
been any objection to the bill, and I stated, Mr. Secretary, that when 
we called upon you you had frankly said that your mind was not 
quite clear as to the provision of the billjwhich purports to make the 
commissioner and his assistant independent of the Department of 
Labor. I do not know what conclusion you have reached, except as 
I have heard that you are inclined to think that they should be 
assigned to your department. If it is agreeable to you and to the 
committee for us to know what your point of view is, I am sure we 
would be very glad. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. WILSON, SECRETARY OF LABOR. 

Secretary Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I have gone through this bill 
not as a student should, but simply casually. The general purpose 
sought to be accomplished by the bill I am in entire accord with. I 
believe, however, that in seeking amendments to any existing legis- 
lation we should be careful when we come to dealing with those 
phases of existing legislation which have proven themselves to be 
practical and have operated successfully. I think there is scarcely a 
doubt that the mediators who have been appointed under the Erd- 
man Act have been successful in administering the act, and they have 
been selected under the existing system, and yet this bill proposes to 
change that system and proposes to change it, as I understand it, 
upon the assumption that whoever undertakes the administration of 
the act will have prejudices to overcome if he is appointed by the De- 
partment of Labor. 

I think that is true with regard to whoever may happen to be ap- 
pointed, whether the appointment is made in accordance with the 
provisions of this proposed act b}^ the President direct or made, as 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 69 

under the existing law, by the President upon the suggestion of the 

Secretary of the department; the individual himself must build up 
a reputation with both sides of the controversies that arise before he 
can be effective in administering the law. That would be true no 
matter who was appointed or how he was appointed. 

The organic act by which the Department of Labor was created 
provides that the Secretary of Labor shall act as a mediator in trade 
disputes and -hall have power to appoint conciliators in trade dis- 
pute s. 

That is one of the most important functions of the new T department. 
and if you establish a separate and distinct commission for the 
handling of trade disputes in the railway service upon the ground 
that prejudices must be overcome before the commission can handle 
the work successfully, the same argument would apply with regard 
to the Secretary of Labor acting as a mediator in trade disputes or 
appointing conciliators in trade disputes, and the great purpose for 
which the Department of Labor was created would be wiped out. 
The method of appointing mediators at the present time having 
worked successfully, it occurs to me that it is not advisable to change 
that method of appointing, except so far as circumstances make it 
obligatory to do so; and if the Commerce Court goes out of existence, 
then there would be the possibility that the President would be lim- 
ited in his selection under existing law of one of the mediators under 
the Erdman Act. and it might be well to provide that the President 
should have the power to select either from the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, the Commerce Court, if it continues in existence, or 
from some presidential appointee in the Department of Commerce. 
but I do not believe that it w-ould be advisable to change the medi- 
ator so far as his relations to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is con- 
cerned. As long as the conditions continue to exist where when dis- 
putes arise the employers in interstate commerce are in a position to 
make concessions to their employees, then there possibly would be no 
necessity of having the assistance of any department in working out 
the problem. But when the time comes, as it undoubtedly will come, 
jud<_ r inL r by our past experience, when we have a prolonged period of 
industrial depression, and when concessions can not be made by the 
employers in the transportation business, then it would be necessary 
to have the assistance and support of a department that has been cre- 
ated for the purpose of promoting the welfare of labor. I now T be- 
lieve that it would be unwise to change that part of it except in so far 
as the member of the Board of Mediation named by the President was 
concerned, and that only because of the fact that changes may pos- 
sibly take place in the personnel of those from whom the President 
may have to select. 

The balance of the bill I have no objection to. On the contrary, I 
believe that it is absolutely necessary, and that it ought to pass in 
order to meet approaching emergencies. It has been shown in the 
recent past that the Erdman Act is not flexible enough so far as it 
applies to the appointment of boards of arbitration. A board of 
arbitration composed of but three members may be sufficiently large 
when you are dealing with a single railway or a single railway sys- 
tem, but when you come to deal with a - (, t of systems, with a number 
of systems joined together, a board of arbitration composed of but 
three members may not be sufficiently Large, and yet under the exist- 



70 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

ing law there is no method by which you can proceed to the arbitra- 
tion with a larger number of arbitrators and do it within the limits 
of the law. You may voluntarily enter into an agreement to proceed 
to arbitrate, but in doing so you take yourself out from under the 
provisions of the Erdman Act, and this provision is necessary to 
meet approaching conditions. Not that the problem of arbitration is 
the important problem in the administration of the Erdman Act, 
because it is not. The important problem in the administration of 
the Erdman Act is the mediation. It is by far better to get the 
parties at interest to mutually agree to the conditions and terms under 
which they are to work together than to submit the controversy, or 
any portion of the controversy, to arbitration. Because, when you 
submit it to arbitration and a third party steps in and decides, then 
there are some sore spots left that are injurious to both parties at 
interest. 

The most important function under the Erdman Act is the func- 
tion of mediation, the bringing together of the contending parties, 
the parties to the dispute, and enabling them or assisting them to 
adjust their own disputes in their own way. So that the arbitration 
feature of it is not the most important, and yet it is one of the fea- 
tures that it has been shown from experience needs amendment. 

There are some other features here that experience has shown are 
necessary to the proper working of the Erdman Act, such as the giv- 
ing of an interpretation of what the decision meant, the giving of 
an interpretation by the board of mediation as to what the agree- 
ment contemplated, and the giving of a decision by a board of arbi- 
tration as to what was meant by certain decisions made by them. 

There is one feature in this bill that I think possibly might bear 
amendment, and that is where it is proposed that the board of 
arbitration, or a subcommittee of the board, may render an opinion 
giving an interpretation of what the award has been. I believe that 
it would be unwise to allow a subcommittee of a board of arbitration 
to put an interpretation upon a decision rendered by the entire board. 
It would lead to complications ; it would lead to dissatisfactions that 
would not be well for the administration of the proposed act. 

Taking it all in all, I believe that this bill ought to be put through 
as an amendment to the Erdman Act, not as a bill proposing to re- 
peal the Erdman Act, but as an amendment to the Erdman Act 
embodying those features which experience has shown are necessary 
and essential for the proper working of the Erdman Act, 

There are some minor features in it that might well be modified, 
particularly if both parties to prospective disputes can be brought to 
an agreement in connection with them. One of the points is the mak- 
ing of the board of arbitration six. As has been pointed out by the 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Pomerene, there is a possibility of a dead- 
lock by your board of arbitration upon decisions where the board of 
arbitration is six, and if that could be made seven or nine by mutual 
agreement, there would not be the same possibility of that deadlock. 

If you have a deadlock with the six individuals who are members 
of the board of arbitration, there is not the same likelihood of public 
opinion affecting them that there is of public opinion affecting the 
original parties to the dispute. You take the workmen or the em- 
ployers in the transportation industry, and^ they are more likely to 
be susceptible to the pressure of public opinion than would be the 



AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 71 

members of a quasi judicial board, who are supposed to pass upon 
the evidence as it has been presented to them. And I am of the 
opinion that that board, the larger board, should be an odd number, 
the same as the smaller board, provided, of course, that both parties 
to transportation disputes can be brought to an agreement upon that 
point. If you propose to put this bill through as it is, the $25,000 
provided as an appropriation will not be anywhere near. adequate 
for the work before you. 

If I recall the bill as I read it. it gives to the board of arbitration 
authority to summon witnesses, administer oaths, and so on. When 
it does that you have a dispute involving all of these technicalities 
that have boon brought to your attention, and the subpoenaing of wit- 
aesses will create an expense for that commission, and you will not be 
able to meet it with either an appropriation of $25,000 or an appro- 
priation of $50,000. I have not made any estimates as to what it 
would cost, but in my judgment it would cost more than that amount 
if you had very extensive arbitrations under this law. And as it is 
now. when it comes to a question where neither side agrees, where 
they are unable to bring them together for the adjustment of their 
trade disputes and where they absolutely refuse to arbitrate, there is 
power in the Bureau of Labor Statistics to proceed with an investi- 
gation of the subject matter, for the purpose of determining just 
where the rights and the wrongs of the controversy are. 

If you make the separate commission, unless you provide that in 
the bill, there is no such power. It seems to me that in order to make 
this commission effective, to put these mediators in a position where 
they can do effective work, there should be behind those commission- 
ers the power to make an investigation in the event of a failure to 
mutually come together, or to submit to arbitration, and that is one 
of the reasons why. in my judgment, there should not be a separate 
commission created as provided by this bill. 

As I said to begin with. I have not made an exhaustive study of the 
bill and I should prefer to file with the committee a brief expressing 
my views, as I think possibly I could present them in a more con- 
nected way in doing so than in this offhand way. 

The Chairman. When do you think you could present the brief? 

Secretary Wilson. Within a day or two. 

The Chairman. It seems to be such an important matter that we 
should act upon this bill promptly. 

Secretary Wilson. I think so. 

The Chairman. I wish to say in this connection that the conditions 
of the relations between the railroads and their employers are such — at 
all events are represented to be such to the committee — as to require 
some important legislation, and the advantage that this bill presents 
to us is that it is the agreement after full discussion of both employ- 
ers and employees: and I understand that they have fully discussed 
the question which you present as to whether it shall be an independ- 
ent commission or whether it should be attached in some way to the 
Department of Labor, and they seem to have come to a conclusion 
regarding that. May we not. if we conclude to accept the amendment 
which you suggest, put this bill into a condition that neither party 
will accept it. and. as I understand it. the objection now is that one 
of the parties will not operate any further under the Erdman Act. 



72 AKBITKATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Secretary Wilson. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, the only 
argument that I have heard presented as a reason why the commis- 
sion should be changed, or the method of appointing the commission 
should be changed, is the argument I have stated. The other pro- 
visions have been objectionable, sometimes to one side and sometimes 
to another, but so far as the administrators of the Erdman Act itself 
are concerned they have not heretofore been objectionable, and even 
since the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been transferred to the new 
department there have been cases handled under the Erdman Act. 
The trainmen's dispute which was handled at Chicago, and which 
Dr. Neill was appointed to the adjustment of, occurred since the new 
department was created, and under the organic act — not under the 
Erdman Act, but under the organic act of the department authorizing 
the appointment of conciliators and authorizing the Secretary to act 
as a mediator. We have had up with some of the eastern railroads — 
the very big eastern roads — disputes that arose between them and 
their clerks which did not come under the Erdman Act and which were 
handled by the department itself, showing that so far as the man- 
agement of the railroads is concerned that there was no feeling of 
prejudice against the department as such. The Acting Commissioner 
of Labor Statistics, Mr. Hanger, handled the case of the railway 
clerks that I have reference to, and handled it apparently without 
prejudice, and acted upon the request of the manager of the railway 
system and the representatives of the employees, so that I think that 
fear is an ungrounded fear. But the difficulty, the great difficulty, 
has grown principally out of the fact that there was no flexibility in 
the appointment of arbitrators. That has been the one great diffi- 
culty, so far as I have been able to learn it, in the administration of 
the Erdman Act. 

Senator Pomerene. Mr. Secretary, while you are on your feet, the 
arbitrators provided for in this bill, where it says to consist of six, 
shall be two to be appointed by each party to the controversy and 
two to be selected by the four thus chosen. Do you know of any 
reason which has been urged, either on behalf of the employers or 
the employees, why that number thus selected by the four arbitrators 
orginally chosen should be two rather than three? I can not con- 
ceive myself what objection there can be to selecting three of the 
same character and kind as the two which this provides for, and 
that would avoid the difficulty. 

Secretary Wilson. The only reason would be this, so far as I have 
been able to learn the situation, that if you permit those four to 
select three others you are giving to the general public, or those who 
are supposed to be the general public, a representation of three upon 
that commission, while the other two interests have each but a repre- 
sentation of two. That, however, would be overcome by the selec- 
tion of a commission of three from each — three employers, three em- 
ployees, and three from the general public — making a commission of 
nine. Then you get a commission in which all three are represented 
and, at the same time, an odd number. 

Mr. Low. May I ask that Mr. Willard, the president of the Balti- 
more & Ohio Railroad, be now heard? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 73 

STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL WILLARD, PRESIDENT BALTIMORE 

& OHIO RAILROAD. 

Mr. Willard. Mr. Chairman and Senators, the whole matter has 
been covered so fully and frankly by Mr. Low, Judge Knapp, Dr. 
Xeill. and others who have spoken, and my views are so fully in ac- 
cord with what they have said, that I will not take your time to go 
over the full matter. 

I should like to indorse what Dr. Xeill say^ with reference to the 
desirability of keeping the arbitration in such a way as to be as far 
as possible removed from any political influence. I think that is of 
the utmost importance. 

Further, it has been pointed out that in any event it must be volun- 
tary with both parties if it is to be effective, and it seems to me that 
it would be well if the Congress can see its way clear to pass a bill 
that ha- been unanimously recommended to it by the two principal 
parties. While it is true it is still voluntary, nevertheless the parties 
recommending it are under the strictest possible moral obligations to 
comply with its provisions after it does become a law. They will 
certainly to that extent be much more strongly bound morally than 
they are under the present law, even though in all other respects the 
present law might be satisfactory. 

With reference to the number, six, my views are quite in accord 
with those expressed by Senator Pomerene. I was in favor of an 
odd number, and I was personally in favor of a committee consti- 
tuted, two selected by the employers, two by the employees, and they 
to select three, in order that we might avoid the deadlock that has 
been suggested. 

In some other minor details my views differ from the bill as it is 
now drawn, but that matter was all discussed very fully and at length 
by a conference called by Mr. Low. and it was found that w T e could 
not get a unanimous conclusion on any other lines than those that 
were finally suggested, and feeling that it was necessary, if we were 
to get prompt action, we should come here and give our unanimous 
support to some bill, we all felt that it would be better to waive our 
minor objections and accept this particular bill upon which we could 
agree. While I personally would prefer a committee constituted of 
a i: odd number, preferably seven. I am not at all concerned about the 
abilities of a deadlock. I think, as Dr. Xeill has pointed out. that 
when these questions which will come before that commission, which 
will be questions of very great magnitude, do come up the arbitrators 
will reach a conclusion, even though the number is only six. 

I think that is all I care to say. 

Senator Pomerene. Do you see any objection to the suggestion 
made by the Secretary that there should be three to be appointed by 
the employers and three to be appointed by the employees and they 
lect another thrc ! 

Mr. Wii.t..\i:i>. Except the objection that has already been urged, 
that it i- a very large commission. It would afford an odd number, 
of court 

Senator Pomerene. 1 want to ask Mr. Willard just one question fur- 
ther. Do you know of any railroads that would object to submitting 
their matters to arbitration under the provisions of this bill? 



74 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Mr. Willard. No, sir; and, so far as I know — and I know defi- 
nitely concerning a very considerable number — they would all be in 
favor of this bill ; and I might say one thing more, they all recognize 
this, that if the Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance, in the eastern 
territory, should submit its difficulties, independent of the others, to 
arbitration under this bill, that would virtually settle the question for 
all the others, so it becomes an assured fact that if one large company 
accepts it the others must. 

Mr. Low. I should like Mr. Warren S. Stone, grand chief Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, to be heard next. 

STATEMENT OF ME. WARREN S. STONE, GRAND CHIEF OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. 

Mr. Stone. Mr. Chairman and Senators, there is little to be said on 
the general features of the bill. With the exception, perhaps, of Mr. 
Garrettson, I have been Erdmanized perhaps more than any other one 
man on the American Continent. I have mediated, I have arbitrated, 
and I have fought outside of the bill, and I made the fatal error of 
going outside of the Erdman Act, at the solicitation of my friend on 
the left, to settle a very serious case in the East a year ago, and I have 
only been sorry once, and that has been ever since. 

I am unalterably opposed to odd numbers, and I am perhaps one of 
the strongest fighters against that in the ranks of the brotherhood, 
because you know " a burned child dreads the fire." 

I have just had an experience where one side held the balance of 
the power, and that was the so-called public side, although the men 
I represent are a part of the public. 

In a recent arbitration for this eastern territory, which is the same 
territory which is now being covered by the trainmen and the con- 
ductors and which brings up the emergency feature of this bill, it 
might be well to tell you who have not studied how vital it is that 
east of Chicago there are 53 railroads representing about 50,000 
miles of track and over 40 per cent of the total freight tonnage and 
the passenger traffic of the United States. In that territory there are 
over 38,000,000 people served by these railroads, and you can readily 
understand what a cessation of traffic means. 

We had a committee of seven, Mr. Willard acting for the railroad, 
and Mr. Morrissey for the trainmen — and I am not here to criticize 
the board, because I am a good loser. I lost, and I am not going to 
"welsh" about it after I did lose, but there were certain features 
developed during that arbitration that have impressed themselves so 
strongly upon me and the representatives of the other labor organiza- 
tions that never again will we put ourselves in that position. We had a 
committee of five selected from the public, and we had in addition 
Judge Knapp and Commissioner Neill, and we had associated with 
them in the selection Chief Justice White, of the Supreme Court. 
They selected five men of international reputation, very learned men 
in their professions, but who knew absolutely nothing about the ABC 
of railroading or the fundamental principles underlying a wage scale. 
They would not have known a box car from a freight car, or a pas- 
senger engine from a freight engine, if they had met them coming 
down the street. They started in to make a wage scale for 32,000 
men, with the local conditions underlying the 54 railroads, and the 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 75 

result was that they stayed together as a unit, and if reports are cor- 
rect these five men representing the public, for fear they might 
become contaminated with the other members of the board, held meet- 
ings of their own. which, if true, was an offense absolutely inexcus- 
able, in my opinion. The result was when the full board did meet 
the steam roller worked overtime and they had their own way. We 
got what they called an award. Nobody knows } T et what that award 
really means. 

On the 29th day of April. 1012. we signed a contract to arbitrate. 
It was to be binding for one year from that date — May 1. It ex- 
pired on May 1 of this year. On the *28th day of November they 
handed down the first draft of their award. On the 16th day of 
February they handed down a subdraft of the report, or rather an 
additional explanatory draft of what the original draft really did 
mean. And now we are back to them again trying to find out what 
the last award they handed down really means. And now that the 
time limit has expired — on May 1 of this year — only 19 roads of 
the 54 have put it into operation, and we are still trying to get the 
rest, and we hope at least that our grandchildren will get the benefit 
of the award. 

Under those conditions, you can readily understand why I do not 
take any stock in an odd arbitration board. I think the question of 
two. two. and two. to which I am strongly wedded, is the right one, 
because never again will I arbitrate a case where any one party to 
the arbitration holds the balance of power. I think the possibility 
of a deadlock so remote that it is not at all likely to occur. It is not 
half as likely to occur as it is if you make the board seven, or an 
odd number, and one of these organizations refuses to accept it, 
which is liable to occur at almost any time, because, speaking for 
the 73.000 men I represent, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engi- 
neers, never again will we accept an arbitration where any one party 
to the arbitration dispute holds the balance of power, and I believe 
with our past experience we are perfectly justified. 

Senator Pomeeene. Mr. Stone, if it will not interrupt you 

Mr. Stoke. Not at all. 

S nator Pomerene. TYliat objection is there to Secretary Wilson's 
suggestion that there be three appointed by the public and three 
each by the employers and employees? 

Mr. Stone. No particular objection, any more than it would make 
it unwieldy and a great deal more expensive. And oftentimes, in 
many cases, it look- to me like taking out a 12-inch siege gun to shoot 
sparrows. F<>r instance, on a road of 40, 50, or GO men, what would 
you want with a big commission of 9 men? 

Mr. WlLLARD. It is optional. 

Mr. Stone. I understand it is optional. I believe the first request 
in the eastern territory was for a committee of 11 men — or IT men 
was the first number. Then they got it down to 11. and finally we 
L r ot it down to 7. But I would have much rather left it to Judge 
Knapp and Dr. Xeill alone than to have it go the way it did. 

What I say to this committee is in no spirit of disrespect. I have 
accepted arbitration and have tried to put it into effect. They were 
very learned gentlemen in their particular class* One man has an 
international reputation as a geologist. He wrote a part of some 80 
or 00 pages of this report, on political economy and sociology, and 



76 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

arbitrated a number of questions that no one dreamed would ever be 
arbitrated. That was the unfortunate feature of it. 

But, coming back to this question here, I want to impress upon you 
men the importance of this emergency. Here is a situation that is 
not an idle dream. It is right here confronting you to-morrow. And 
if something is not done, you are liable to have this whole eastern 
country tied up. This is the only plan that after weeks of discussion 
we can get together on, and we believe it is one that is absolutely 
fair. You can just let your mind run riot and you can not imagine 
how bad it will be if the railroads east of Chicago stop traffic for even 
24 hours, and yet it is something that is liable to happen. 

Eegarding the question of investigation, with all due regard to 
our Secretary — and I have a very high personal regard for him — 
I want to say to you the very minute the Secretary of Labor starts 
to investigate one of these wage questions between the railroads and 
their employees, and then passes judgment and delivers his opinion 
upon it, right then and there it has lost its usefulness, because never 
again will either side look at it except with suspicion, in my opinion. 
I do not believe that either side has understood at any time that Dr. 
Neill and Judge Knapp, when they were acting as mediators in the 
number of cases that they have handled throughout the country, with 
which I am familiar — I do not believe we dreamed for a moment they 
were under any bureau or any department at all. I am sure if we had 
thought they were, we would have studied a long while whether we 
should have accepted their mediation or not. I believe it would be 
a mistake, because I know the class of man it takes and the peculiar 
qualities necessary. Why, a man to be a mediator has got to have a 
backbone in him a yard wide, and he has got to have red blood in 
him. And while they are both friends of mine, I do not know of a 
man on earth to whose funeral I have felt sometimes I would rather 
send flowers than to them. I know the other side feels the same way. 
And it takes a lot of courage and backbone to hold both sides up to 
the line and bring a settlement with two contending forces, because 
there is a strong sentiment on both sides, and I know how strong this 
feeling gets at times. Therefore I think it is a grave mistake, with 
all due regard to the Secretary's opinion, to undertake to put it under 
his department or any other bureau. I believe it should stand 
absolutely alone. 

We generally wait, you know, until people are dead before we say 
anything nice about them. If we could always be assured that Judge 
Knapp and Dr. Neill would be the two men who would mediate and 
pass on these cases, I would not care whom you put it under. But, 
unfortunately, you do not get men like that only about once in a 
lifetime, and we do not know who is coming after them to succeed 
them ; but they should be absolutely free, because I know the threat 
has been made time and time again that they would go behind these 
men. There was not any place to go, but I am satisfied, if it was 
under the Secretary of Labor to-morrow, that an attempt would be 
made by one side or the other to bring political pressure to bear on 
the Secretary in the first big case that came up. I am just as sure it 
will come as that I know that the sun will come up to-morrow morn- 
ing, because I know human nature just enough to know it would try 
to pull every possible string, and capital and labor would try to in- 
fluence him on their side. Just as Ions: as it is under the control of 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 77 

any political appointee you are going to have that clanger. I think 
it would be a fatal mistake. 

The man who ads as the mediator between these great bodies has 
got to be a man of peculiar fitness for the place. You can not take a 
stenographer out of an office or some man and make a mediator out 
of him in a few days. He will have to build himself up. And while 
what the Secretary said is true — that, regardless of the fact that the 
Government i- back of this man. he will have to establish a reputa- 
tion for himself for fairness — yet it is true that this man must not 
start out and be handicapped for two or three years by either side 
looking at him with suspicion. We do not want any man to come 
down and mediate our wage scale for us who comes from the ranks of 
labor, and 1 can not believe that the employers want a man to come 
from the ranks of labor to act as mediator for them. I think he 
should bo from the outside entirely. 

Mr. Webb. Why would political pressure be brought to bear, then, 
on the Secretary in appointing these arbitrators? 

Mr. Stone. Why would it be? It would not be brought to bear 
upon the Secretary in appointing. It would probably be brought to 
bear if the arbitrator or mediator did not get the results they thought 
they ought to have, in that they would try to get behind him. I do 
not believe any man will ever successfully build a place for himself 
if he has got to be a part of a bureau with some man above him tell- 
ing him what he has got to do. I do not believe you can get the char- 
acter of man with the necessary stamina in him to do the work who 
will accept that opinion. 

Mr. Webb. Are vou afraid that influence would reach the Presi- 
dent '. 

Mr. Stone. Xo : it is not as likely to come there, and yet it should 
be as far removed from all political influence as possible. In my 
opinion it should be a bureau by itself, and there is not any danger 
about him not having work enough. He will be busy the biggest 
part of the year because we have 34S railroads stretching otit here 
all over this great continent. It is going to mean a lot. 

Regarding the cost. I question if the cost will run up to the amount 
stated, for this reason: This committee of arbitration and mediation 
under the Erdman Act has always had the power to subpoena wit- 
ses, and yet I do not know of them subpoenaing a single witness 
in any of the cases I have ever handled. Each side has presented 
their strong witnesses for their particular side of the case. I do not 
know of them subpoenaing a single man. 

Regarding the statistics that the Secretary speaks of. I want to say 
to you frankly, with all due respect to the different department- of 
the Government, that I would not accept :i- authentic either the sta- 
tistics from the Commissioner of Labor or the statistics which have 
been proven incorrect from the Interstate Commerce Commission 
bearing on the wage -'■ale- of the railroad employees of the United 
States. In our Last arbitration in the eastern territory we proved that 
the statistics from the Interstate Commerce Commission relative to 
the average wage of the engine"!-- was absolutely incorrect, and we 
can prove it ;iL r ain at any Stage of the L r ;mie. and for thai reason I 
would not accept them in any arbitration case. 

Mtlemen. speaking for these engineers, I want to impress upon 
you the importance of this being an emergency measure. I know 



78 ARBITRATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

what it means. I have been at the head of this organization for 
years, and I know what it means in one of these great wage move- 
ments, and I know how tight everything is strung up just to the 
breaking point, and how easy it is to get on just over the breaking 
point and have things go to smash. 

You might ask why we have these concerted movements. , Why is 
it necessary? At the start of the Erdman Act we handled the indi- 
vidual railroad with the individual manager. That day has gone by. 
I wish I had one of the exhibits here to show you that we used in our 
eastern arbitration case, where 15 directors held 63 positions on the 
52 roads. 

It is the intercorporate relation, the interlocking of these great 
systems, that practically puts the control of all these great railroads 
in the hands of a few men. And for that reason it is simply a waste 
of time to make a move against an individual railroad. You have 
got to move all of the roads in a competing territory in one move 
together. That is why we have these concerted movements, and it 
has been found necessary to do that in order to get results, and it 
is probable they will be handled in that way in the coming years. 

But this thing that confronts us to-day is not imaginary. It is 
real. It is right here. The Fourth of July is only a little ways off, 
and that problem will be confronting the railroads east of Chicago, 
and things will be strung up to the point where it is the easiest thing 
in the world to have them break up. There is not any question about 
the power of these organizations, and there is not any question that 
they believe in the justice and equity of their position, and if this 
plan which we propose here is something which both parties can 
get together on, and have industrial peace, then it seems to me in all 
fairness for the great class of men we are all trying to represent, and 
you men who are looking after the interests of these 38,000,000 men 
who are served by the railroads in this eastern territory, that this 
bill should be passed. 

I shall be very glad to answer questions anyone has to ask. 

The Chairman. You would urge, then, that this bill be passed 
without amendment? 

Mr. Stone. I certainly would, yes, sir; because I am afraid if 
you commence to amend it you will destroy the very thing we are 
trying to bring about, and that is industrial peace, because I know 
that there are certain amendments that are recommended by a few 
that the labor organizations would not accept. 

The Chairman. There is certainly no danger to the public in this 
bill at all that you can suggest? 

Mr. Stone. I can not see any, but I can see a whole lot of safe- 
guards for industrial peace. 

The Chairman. Outside of the public the only two parties inter- 
ested are the railroads on one side and their employees on the other ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. 

The Chairman. And they would both agree? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. 

The Chairman. And these gentlemen in whom you have such 
confidence — Judge Knapp and Dr. Neill and the representatives of 
the Civic Federation are of the same view ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They want this bill passed without amendment? 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 79 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir: the bill as it lays before you is not only the 
result of our judgment but the result of years of bitter experience. 

The Chairman. How long have you been engaged in framing this 
bill? 

Mr. Stone. We have been discussing the bill off and on for three 
years. It finally crystalized 

The Chairman. You have had numerous discussions? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir; I suppose discussions without number. 

The Chairman. And you regard it as your best expression? 

Mr. Stone. I believe it is the best thought of the combined inter- 
ests that are represented here in that bill. 

Senator Thompson. How long have you been working on it this 
last time \ 

Mr. Stone. I think we have been working on it perhaps four or 
five months. That is, since we have taken 

Senator Thompson. You had an organization meeting here, did 
you not. iii the last few months or weeks? 

Mr. Stone. Yes; we have had several meetings here and in New 
York. 

Judge Knapp. When was the meeting in New York? 

Mr. Stone. The meeting in New York was held in March, but it 
has been up by correspondence, I think, commencing along about last 
September. 

Senator Thompson. Was this one of the principal subjects dis- 
cussed at that meeting? 

Mr. Stone. Yes; it is the amendment, and it was more closely 
brought out by the firemen, because we realized when Dr. Neill and 
Judge Knapp used their power and had the railroad come across and 
accept the arbitration under the Erdman Act that it was the last 
time it would ever happen. We realized that we had come to the 
parting of the ways and that something had to be done. 

Senator Thompson. That objection you would not urge against a 
committee of nine? 

Mr. Stone. No : I would not particularly object to nine, although I 
think it is unwieldy. It is too large. But I am sure we all agree — for 
example, in our eastern wage scale we had about $11,000,000 at stake, 
and it is too much power to put in the hands of any one man. I do 
not want to stake the future welfare and the working conditions of 
32.000 engineers on the particular ideas of one man. 

- aator Thompson. That is, that one man might control the final 
decision ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. I think it is too great. 

Senator Brandecee. I was going to ask you what is your explana- 
tion of the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to 
state correctly the average wages of the engineers? 

Mr. Stone. I think their system of arriving at the average daily 
wage is entirely wrong. 

Senator Bbandegee. T mean, take the engineers: ii would seem to 
me to bo a simple problem, without being familiar with it at all. 
What is the difficulty about ascertaining the average daily wage of 
the ei -. if you know the wages paid on each road? 

Mr. Stone. In the first place, all the reports the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission have are made by the railroads themselves. That 
is the first thing. The next thing is. an average of a number of 



80 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

things is misleading. For example, I might have four meals to-day, 
you have three, another man three, and another man two, and the 
average of all is three, but you would have a hard time making the 
last man believe he had three meals. On a particular road when you 
take the averages of the parties you have a result that nobody be- 
lieves. It does not mean anything. Figures, you know, can be 
juggled. I have juggled a few myself, and it is possible to take 
figures that you can not question and prove by them that yesterday is 
the day after to-morrow. 

Senator Brandegee. I can understand that possibly the average 
would not represent in many instances what the particular persons 
received, of course, but I understood you to say that their figures 
were wrong, and that you would not accept them at all. 

Mr. Stone. No, sir: and the firemen in their late arbitration re- 
fused absolutely to accept them, and we have torn them to pieces by 
our statistician and proved them to be incorrect, and I think it is an 
open secret at the present time that the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission is considering the adoption of a new plan of keeping records 
entirely, so as to arrive at a more correct figure. 

Senator Brandegee. Since you have called their attention to this, 
does the commission admit that their figures are erroneous? 

Mr. Stone. They admit they are made up from the best informa- 
tion they have. 

Senator Brandegee. Do the railroads misstate the wages they pay? 

Mr. Stone. No; I do not think they intentionally misstate. I 
would not mean to say that. 

Senator Brandegee. If this should become a law, it would not be 
compulsory arbitration, would it? 

Mr. Stone. No, sir. 

Senator Brandegee. They can arbitrate if they want to now, can 
they not? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Senator Brandegee. It was stated this morning by one of the gen- 
tlemen — Mr. Arthur, I think — that the railroad had absolutely de- 
clined to arbitrate this question, anticipating difficulties. 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Senator Brandegee. The act provides in section 3 that when a con- 
troversy arises which can not be settled through mediation the con- 
troversy may be submitted to the arbitration of the board of six. 

Even if this bill which you urge to meet this pending emergency 
were passed, the railroads might still refuse to arbitrate, might they 
not? 

Mr. Stone. They might, but I do not think they would, because 
you heard Mr. Atterbury, I think, speaking for the Pennsylvania 
Railroad, say they would accept it, and Mr. Willard, speaking for 
the Baltimore & Ohio, practically says the same thing; and also Mr. 
Brown, of the New York Central lines, indorses this. So, with him, 
speaking for the 17 lines he controls, they would practically dominate 
the eastern country. 

Senator Brandegee. What surprises me is that they are willing 
to arbitrate if we pass this bill, and yet they refuse to arbitrate now, 
and I do not see why. 

Mr. Stone. This is why: Under the present arbitration you have 
only three. Each side selects a partisan. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 81 

Senator Brandegee. T am not talking about the Erdman Act. I 
mean to say it seems to me, offhand, without any knowledge of what 
has led up to this controversy, that if the two parties had a sincere 
desire to compose their differences, it is perfectly within their power 
now to appoint, say, six or nine men and provide for their appoint- 
ment in such manner as they might agree upon. If the spirit of ar- 
bitration were present, it seems to me they could arbitrate now. 

Mr. Stone. That is perhaps true. I did. I went outside of the 
law and arbitrated, and I paid up not only in the expenses of the 
arbitration but I paid dearly for the award we got, and I say to you 
frankly that we are not going out of the law to arbitrate again, 
regardless of what the need may be. 

Senator Brandegee. What has been the difficulty? 

Mr. Stone. The difficulty is that after the award is handed down 
you can not get it put into effect. 

Senator Brandegee. I am in favor of this bill personally, so far 
as I know at the present time, but I was at a loss to explain to myself 
why both parties could get together in such a friendly spirit after 
this was passed, which simply leaves it optional with them to do, 
provided they were willing to do it if they wanted to, while they are 
unwilling now. 

Mr. Stone. There is this difference. When you are arbitrating 
under the law you have a moral effect that you do not get in any 
other way. 

Senator Brandegee. I can see that if the award was enforceable as 
a judgment of a court, by execution or by an injunction, that this 
would be a more binding and efficacious remedy than the other, but I 
myself can not understand why you could not do everything now if 
you wanted to that you could do if we passed this optional bill. 

Mr. Skni:. We could, perhaps, but unfortunately the millennium 
is not here. "When we arrive at that day. when we w T ill all do right 
and be right, we will not need any boards. 

Senator Brandegee. That is a sort of Christian Science treatment? 

Mr. Stone. It is a kind of an absent treatment at some times. 
[Laughter.] 

Senator Thompson. Let me ask you another question about the 
number of this board. I am not quite satisfied. I feel like Senator 
Pomerene. The even number six does not seem right to me as a 
lawyer. To obviate the objection you have raised, why would it not 
do to have a board of nine and permit a verdict of seven to control 
the decision I That would not place the responsibility upon one man. 

Mr. Stone. 1 do not see any particular objection to a board of 
nine, although I think it is too bulky. T think we are borrowing a 
whole lot of trouble in bridging a stream that we will never come to. 
I want to say to you when a board of six appointed under a law of 
the United States, two and two and two. fail utterly to get together, 
the parties at interest have got to have a pretty strong position that 
will let them take the bit in their teeth and go away and strike 

Senator Thompson. Then would not cine side or the other lose 
greater rights than if a decision could be reached in some other wayl 
One side would surrender more than they would if it could lx> decided 
by a smaller number? 

Mr. Stone. Probably both sides would surrender something in the 
spirit of trying to get together. Just think of leaving the whole 
1421— S. Rept. 72. 63-1 c> 



82 AKBITKATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

thing to one man, or to one influence, like in our own arbitration in 
the East, when we had a class of men who were so class conscious 
that they practically ran the steam roller over different questions 
that both Mr. Willard, who represented the railroads, and Mr. 
Morissey, who represented the engineers, agreed were right. Yet the 
steam roller worked merrily on. 

Senator Thompson. I am thinking of the interests of both parties 
to the contention. I know from my little experience in the court 
and on the bench that a decision — a unanimous decision — of 12 men 
is more times erroneous than a decision of 7 out of the 12, and a 
greater injustice is sometimes done by requiring a unanimous verdict. 

Mr. Stone. So far as that is concerned, I would rather leave it to 
the presiding judge at any time than I would to the jury at any 
stage of the game. 

Senator Thompson. You are trying to frame a plan here so that 
an agreement can be reached to the advantage of all ? 

Mr. Stone. I believe we have got it. 

Senator Robinson. The chief virtue in six is that they have all 
agreed upon it and all want it? 

Mr. Stone. Yes ; and we would not have seven as a gift. 

Mr. Low. I will next present Mr. Post, who is the president of 
the Railway Business Association. He has been much interested, 
and his organization behind him, in having the Erdman law amended 
so that it would meet the views of both sides, and we of the National 
Civic Federation happened to hear that and asked Mr. Post if he 
would come here and present the views of his organization. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE A. POST, PRESIDENT RAILWAY 
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. Post. Mr. Chairman and Senators, the Railway Business 
Association is an organization of manufacturers of all of the differ- 
ent kinds of material and equipment entering into the building and 
maintenance of the railroads of the country, an organization giving 
employment to a million and a half workingmen in this country, 
giving sustenance to 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of its population, paying 
$250,000,000 yearly of the freights earned by the railroads, and using 
some 225,000 cars of their total equipment in the transportation of 
our commodities. 

I would say in the beginning that this has been a most interesting 
and illuminating afternoon for me, having at one time had the honor 
of sitting as you gentlemen now do as a Member of the Congress of 
the United States, acting as a member of different committees before 
whom have come many people contesting for certain desires upper- 
most in their minds, pulling and hauling each other, each trying to 
get the advantage of the other. But this afternoon I have witnessed 
a most glorious sight, a joint committee of the Senate and the House 
listening to all parties who are interested in controversies upon the 
wage question, one of the most vital questions affecting humanity, 
pleading with this committee that you shall accept from them the 
draft of a bill to be passed at the earliest possible moment by Con- 
gress, to which they have given much earnest thought, as they have 
come to realize the dangers that confront the country if there shall 
not be an agreement and harmonizing of these great conflicting m- 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 83 

terests. and who have given and taken in these conferences, these men 
who are accustomed to the exercise of power, the controlling of Large 

bodies of men. and yet they have met each other face to face, and 
have had the patriotism and the administrative judgment to concede 
some points which they thought they would prefer to have in this 
bill, showing deference to the protests of others, weighing whether 

it should be 9 or 6 or 3 or 11 men that should sit on a board, and 
they have found that 6 would satisfy them all. 

The organization which I have the honor to represent has not par- 
ticipated in any of their conferences, although invited to do so by 
Mayor Low. Our position is that of an important part of the public 
which uses these railways. We have factories all over the country, 
we must have transportation facilities, and in appearing before you 
I feel that T. in a feeble way. may call myself a representative of 
the public, which constitutes the third party to the controversies which 
these people are trying so earnestly to compose. 

Therefore, gentlemen, it is not necessary for me to review to you 
the arguments that have been so ably presented by them of why they 
have done certain things, but to come to you as a representative of 
the business men and say that what these men want I believe the pub- 
lic of the United States is yearning for, and that is immediate action, 
the passage under any kind of emergency parliamentary practice 
that can be designed to meet this particular case, so that when this 
vote that is now being taken shall be filed with the officers of these 
organizations, and again the employers and the employees shall 
face each other, there shall be a method of arbitration provided which 
public opinion will insist shall be availed of. 

It has been a*ked by one of the honorable members of the com- 
mittee. Will they do it? I am confident that such is the state of 
public sentiment to-day that any of these organizations making their 
demands, or any organization refusing demands and finally getting 
to this crucial situation where something must be done by mediation 
and arbitration, that either side offering to go — the wording of the 
statute i> " may " — but if either side shall say, Let us avail ourselves 
of this hill as it has been passed by Congress, there is not any rail- 
road organization, there is not any labor organization that will face 
the obloquy that would be heaped upon them by the public by refusing 
t<i accept the provisions of this act. 

The Railway Business Association, when this matter first began 
to be bruited, took a very active and earnest interest in it. We knew 
what it meant to us as well as the rest of the business public, and 
we issued a bulletin upon this subject entitled "The National Menace 
of Railway Strikes.' 5 Our secretary, Mr. Xoxon. has copies of what 
we call Bulletin No. 1*2. which I shall ask him to leave with the 
committee, so that they may see what was the position assumed by 
our organization, in which we discussed what we thought ought to 
be 'lone. We ourselves proposed certain provisions which should 
numerated in this bill. Some of them have been included and 
others have been left out. But whatever the judgment of these 
people, we are not here to say to you that we wani any of our -u.L r - 
tions incorporated now. because we bow to the consensus of opin- 
ion of these men who have given it such continuous thought. When 
our bulletin went abroad, scattered throughout the country, going 
in all the newspaper offices in the cities of this country, we have had 



84 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

our reader, who goes over the columns of those papers, clip out the 
references, editorial utterances, expressing the opinion of individuals, 
or anything of that kind, and we will also lay before you clippings 
that have been taken from those papers, which will convey to your 
minds what has been said upon this question and upon the desirabil- 
ity and the necessity of such a bill as this, and that it is important 
that it should be done at the earliest possible moment, 

I will say, also, that my reader tells me that in all the papers he 
has read that have come from all quarters of our country, that, while 
in many of them have been urgent editorial expressions urging this, 
there has not been one paper in the United States, so far as we have 
found, which has opposed the passage of a bill such as this which 
is now before you. 

One other matter, gentlemen, and I am through. That is, as a 
business man, some attention has been paid to the cost that might 
be involved in the passage of this bill. I feel that I represent in 
your presence men who represent investments running high into the 
hundreds of millions of dollars, who are heavy taxpayers in all of 
the States of the Union, who contribute to the revenues of our Gov- 
ernment stupendous amounts of monej', and I can give you assur- 
ance, gentlemen, that the business public of the United States will 
point no finger of criticism upon any amount of money that is nec- 
essary to install this board of mediation and to pay the expenses of 
arbitration, no matter what figure it may be, because it will be the 
best possible investment that can be made by this Government for 
the establishment of industrial peace instead of being constantly 
upon the verge of industrial war, with all of its disastrous conse- 
quences to us all. 

I thank you. 

(The bulletin and newspaper clippings referred to above are as 
follows:) 

[Railway Business Association Bulletin No. 12.] 

The National Menace of Railway Strikes — Immediate Legislation Impera- 
tive — Federal Arbitration Law No Longer Adequate — More Wage Contro- 
versies Threaten Disastrous Tie-up — Extra Session the Time for Action. 

Congress is soon to convene in extra session for the consideration of subjects 
deemed of great importance to the country. Though it is well understood that 
the scope of the matters to be dealt with is to be limited, there is one question 
upon which legislation has apparently not been contemplated, and upon which 
wise action would do much to " reassure business." One acute cause of busi- 
ness anxiety at this moment is the fear that through a failure of the Federal 
Erdman Act arbitration of railway labor disputes may break down and plunge 
large areas or perhaps the whole country into the chaos and disaster of a strike. 
This bulletin is issued in the hope that it may be helpful in crystallizing public 
sentiment to the end that Congress may be impressed with the fact that no leg- 
islation is of more importance at this time than to create machinery of arbi- 
tration which will guard as effectively as possible against the occurrence of 
strikes involving interruption to railway operation. 

Geo. A. Post, 
President Railway Business Association. 

congress at the extra session should make arbitration procedure so 
acceptable to employees and railway managers that adjustment of 
disputes will be assured without inflicting interruption of train 
service upon millions of neutrals. 

The country's bare escape during recent months from railway strikes tying 
up traffic throughout territory containing in some instances nearly half the 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 85 

whole population makes it imperative to remove at once the possibility of such 
a situation in future. 

What would occur if any one of the classes of labor in the operation of 
railway trains over such an area should quit work for any considerable time 
is beyond anything in American experience, it would paralyze commerce and 
bring hunger and misery to millions. 

There is no reason to doubt that demands for increase of wages Or more 
favorable working conditions will frequently take the form of concerted 
action by employees on many lines at once. The allegation as to cost of living 
upon which railway employees have relied for public sympathy in their 
demand for enlarged compensation has been made simultaneously all over the 
country. The consequent concurrent demand which has developed the iarge- 
scale disptites gives every appearance of having become a permanent feature 
in such negotiations. The eastern conductors and trainmen have announced a 
purpose to press demands after the Bremen's case is concluded. 

IMMEDIATE ACTION DESIRABLE. 

The urgency of the situation leads the Railway Business Association to go 
outside its main function of conciliation between railways and the public and 
seek to arouse the public, the railway employees, and the railway managers to 
cooperation and the President and Congress to action at the extra session. 
The Federal Erdman Act, through which until recently strikes causing inter- 
ruption to train service have been almost wholly prevented, has all but broken 
down at the point where, mediation failing, arbitration was attempted in the 
large-scale dispute involving many roads at once. The eastern engineers' case 
rbitrated outside the act. In the eastern firemen's case the roads agreed 
to arbitration under the act only after earnest protest and because they 
believed this to be the only means of averting a strike. The firemen through 
their officials went on record as favoring amendments which would render the 
act more applicable to present conditions. 

The Erdman Act should be amended forthwith or legislation substituted for 
it providing a form of voluntary arbitration so little open to valid objection as 
to deprive disputants of all reasonable excuse for declining arbitration under 
the law. To postpone remedial legislation is to invite widespread and. perhaps, 
national disaster at any moment. 

DEFECTS OF THE ERDMAN ACT. 

While effective in averting strikes through mediation in controversies of 
whatever extent, the Erdman Act is unsatisfactory in large-scale disputes if 
they reach the arbitration stage. 

Arbitration outside the act, on the other hand, as tried in the engineers' 
case, was declined by the firemen on the ground that they desired the decision 
to be an award, without recommendation of new legislation, and believed the 
act would so restrict the findings, and also on the ground that the testimony 
should be taken under oath, as provided by the act. 

What are the defects of the Erdman Ad V 

board— The act provides for a board of but three arbitrators, two 
of whom represent the respective parties. All concerned urge that a decision 
Involving many roads over a wide m-ea. many thousands of employees, and 
many million dollars annually should be rendered by a board having more 
neutrals than one. Provision should be made in the act for fixing upon a 
larger number when desired. An increase in the proportion of Hie number of 
neutral arbitrators to partisans will bring more minds to bear apon the many 
questions arising in large areas and tend to promote equity in the derisions. 

e for investigation. — The act limits the time for the investigation to 30 
days, it is said that in so short ;i time the investigation is likely to result In 
little more than a splitting >>f differei • time for the Investigation should 

be made elastic 

Statistics. — If statistics and other data now available are unfitted for ibis 
purpose, machinery should be established for standardizing, collecting, keeping, 
and furnishing information which will meet the need. 

</. — The statute now affects only employees engaged in 
train service— engineers, firemen, conductors, trainmen, yard and switch men, 
and telegraphers. Other classes frequently appeal to the Government medl- 

- and their organisations bave asked that the law be extended to include 



86 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 



them. Some of the most serious strikes affecting large territory have been 
those of shopmen and others not engaged in train service. The act should be 
made applicable to all railway employees. 

Mediators. — It is urged that the burden of mediation, already heavy, will 
increase as time goes on, especially if the act is extended to include all classes 
of railway employees. The machinery of mediation should therefore be made 
adequate to the enlarging demands upon it. It is also pointed out that only 
a few Federal officers are ex officio eligible to appointment as mediators. The 
mediator has the function when the representatives of the parties fail to agree 
of appointing neutral arbitrators. There would always be the temptation in 
one quarter or another when a vacancy arose in a position the occupant of 
which is eligible as mediator to urge candidates primarily because of their 
supposed predisposition in labor disputes. Nor is there any assurance that 
future incumbents, however competent in the offices designated in the statute, 
will by temperament and training be qualified for the extremely difficult work 
of mediation. Eligibility to appointment as a mediator having the function 
of appointing neutral arbitrators should be made to depend as completely as 
possible upon personality and experience for the specific function of mediation. 

LET ALL COOPERATE. 

Railway managers, railway employees, and the public should cooperate to 
obtain legislation which will place them squarely on the side of industrial peace 
and public convenience and accomplish some progress in the direction of equity 
for all concerned in the settlement of wage disputes. 

To save all the people from the waste and the misery of strikes is so impera- 
tive that it would seem that the President and the leaders in Congress might 
well include in their legislative program for the forthcoming extra session con- 
sideration of appropriate measures for the strengthening and improvement of 
the machinery for arbitration in railway labor controversies. 

RAILWAY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. 

President. — George A. Post. 

Vice presidents. — A. M. Kittridge, W. E. Clow, G. W. Simmons, S. P. Bush, 
Alba B. Johnson, H. G. Prout, W. G. Pearce. 

Treasurer. — Charles A. Moore. 

Executive members. — E. L. Adreon, J. C. Bradley, J. S. Coffin, Walter H. 
Cottingham, O. H. Cutler, William C. Dodd, Henry Elliot, Irving T. Hartz, 
F. T. Heffelfinger, W. B. Leach, E. B. Leigh, W. H. Marshall, William McCon- 
way, W. H. Miner, A. H. Mulliken, Rudolph Ortmann, W. W. Salmon, J. H. 
Schwacke, James S. Stevenson, H. H. Westinghouse, W. W. Willits, W. P. 
Worth. 

Secretary. — Frank W. Noxon. 

Assistant treasurer. — M. S. Clayton. 

RAILWAY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, MARCH 11, 1913. 



Acme Machinery Co. 

Adams & Westlake Co. 

Ajax Forge Co. 

Ajax Manufacturing Co. 

Alan Wood Iron & Steel Co. 

American Arch Co. 

American Bank Note Co. 

American Brake Co. 

American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. 

American Hoist & Derrick Co. 

American Iron & Steel Manufacturing 

Co. 
American Locomotive Co. 
American Materials Co. 
American Nut & Bolt Fastener Co. 
American Radiator Co. 
American Steel Foundries. 
American Tool Works Co. 
American Valve & Meter Co. 



Atlantic Works. 

Ayer & Lord Tie Co. 

Baldwin (The) Locomotive Works. 

Barbour Stockwell Co. 

Barney & Smith Car Co. 

Barnum Richardson Co. 

Bass Foundry & Machine Co. 

Baush Machine Tool Co. 

Beaver Dam Malleable Iron Co. 

Beck & Corbitt Iron Co. 

Berry Bros. (Ltd.). 

Bettendorf Axle Co. 

Bosley (D. W.) Co. 

Bourne-Fuller Co. 

Bowser (S. F.) & Co. (Inc.). 

Bradley (Osgood) Car Co. 

Bridgeport Malleable Iron Co. 

Brill (J. G.) Co. 

Bronze Metal Co. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYERS. 



87 



Brooker i Charles P.)« 

Brown Car Wheel Works. 

Buckeye Steel Castings Co. 

Bueyrus Co. 

Buds Co. 

Buffalo Brake Beam Co. 

Buffalo Car Wheel Foundry I 

Burden Iron Co. 

Cambria Steel Co. 

Came: I 

Carnegie steel Co. 

Central Coal & Coke Go. 

Central Electri 

Central Railway Signal Co. 

Chase (1 & < 

Chicago Bearing Metal Co. 

Chicago Bridge A Iron Works. 

Chicago Car Heating Co. 

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. 

Chicago Railway Equipment Co. 

Chicago Varnish Co. 

City Fuel Co. 

Cleveland Car Specialty Co. 

Cleveland Copper Ferrule Co. 

Cleveland Frog vV Crossing Co. 

Cleveland Twist Drill Co. 

Clow (James B.) & Sons 

Coale (Thomas E.) Lumber Co. 

Columbia Refining Co. 

Columbus Iron & Steel Co. 

Commonwealth Steel Co. 

Consolidated Car-Heating Co. 

Corning Glass Works. 

Crerar, Adams ft Co. 

Crocker Bros. 

Crucible Steel Co. of America. 

Curtain Supply Co. 

Cyclops Steel Works. 

Dayton Malleable Iron Co. 

Dayton Manufacturing Co. 

Dearborn Chemical Co. 

Decatur Car Wheel Co. 

Devoe (P. W. I ft Raynolds (C. T.) Co. 

Dickson Car Wheel Co. 

Dixon (Joseph) Crucible Co. 

Drese Railway Lamp Works. 

Duff Manufacturing Co. 

Edgar Allen American Manganese 
Stee 

trie Railway Journal. 

Elliot Frog ft Switch i 

Elliott-Fis 

Elyria IrOD ft Stool Co. 

Fairbanks. Mo 

Flannery Bolt Co. 

Fort Pitt Malleable Iron C 

Franklin Manufacturing Co. 

Franklin Railway Supply I 

Franklin 8 

Galena-Signal Oil ' ' 

Oarlock Packing i 

General Electric I 

General Railway Signal Co. 

General Railway Supply Co. 

Gold Car Heating A Lighting Co. 

Golden-Anderson Valve Specialty I 



Gould Coupler Co. 
Graham Nut Co. 
Grand Rapids Malleable Works. 
Gray (Peter) & Sons (Inc.). 
Green's ( !ar Wheel Manufacturing Co. 
Greene I Stephen) Co. 
Griffin Wheel Co. 
(.rip Nut Co. 
Halo & Kilburn Co. 
Hall Signal Co. 
Hammett (II. G.) 
Hanna (M. A.) & Co. 
Harbison-Walker Refractories Co. 
Haskell & Barker Car Co. 
Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Co. 
Hettler (Herman H.) Lumber Co. 
Hewitt Manufacturing Co. 
Hevwo.nl Bros. & Wakefield Co. 
Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. 
Ilildreth Varnish Co. 
Ilines (Edward) Lumber Co. 
Hoopes & Town send Co. 
Hunt (Robert W.) & Co. 
Hunt-Spiller Manufacturing Corpora- 
tion. 
Hutchins Car Roofing Co. 
Independent Pneumatic Tool Co. 
Ingersoll-Rand Co. 
Inland Steel Co. 
Iroquois Iron Co. 
Jeffrey Manufacturing Co. 
Jenkins Bros. 
Joyce. Cridland Co. 
Joyce- Wat kins Co. 
Kay & Ess Co. 

Keith Car & Manufacturing Co. 
Kerite Insulated Wire & Cable Co. 
Keystone Coal & Coke Co. 
La Belle Iron Works. 
Laconia Car Co. 
Lima Locomotive Corporation. 
Lidgerwood Manufacturing Co. 
Lockhart Iron & Steel Co. 
Locomotive Finished Material Co. 
Locomotive Superheater Co. 
Lodge & Shipley Machine Tool Co. 
Lowe BroS. Co. 
Lunkenheimer Co. 
McConway & Torley Co. 
Mr-ford & Co. 

Moiivain (J. Gibson | & Co. 
McQuesten (George) Co. 
Magnus Metal Co. 
Manganese Steel Rail Co. 
Manning. Maxwell vV Moore (Inc.). 
Marion Malleable Iron Works. 
Maryland Brass & Metal Works. 
Mi ryland Car Wheel Works. 
Midvale Steel Co. 
Milwaukee Coke A Gas 
Milwaukee-Western Fuel Co. 

Minor (W. II. i Co. 

Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co. 

ouri Malleable Eron Co. 
Morden Frog & Crossing Works. 



88 



ABBITKATION BETWEEN" EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 



More-Jones Brass & Metal Co. 

Morse Twist Drill & Machine Co. 

Mott (J. L.) Iron Works. 

Mound City Paint & Color Co. 

Mount Vernon Car Manufacturing Co. 

Mudge (Burton W.) & Co. 

Murphy Varnish Co. 

Nathan Manufacturing Co. 

National Cash Register Co. 

National Lock Washer Co. 

National Machinery Co. 

National Malleable Castings Co. 

National Pole Co. 

New York Air Brake Co. 

New York Belting & Packing Co. 

(Ltd.). 
New York Switch & Crossing Co. 
Nicholson File Co. 
Niles-Bem nt-Pond Co. 
North Western Fuel Co. 
Ohio Malleable Iron Co. 
Oliver Typewriter Co. 
P. & M. Co. 
Pantasote Co. 
Parkesburg Iron Co. 
Patterson (John H.). 
Patterson-Sargent Co. 
Peerless Rubber Manufacturing Co. 
Pettibone, Mulliken & Co. 
Pickands, Brown & Co. 
Pickands, Mather & Co. 
Pilliod Co. 

Pittsburgh Forge & Iron Co. 
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 
Pittsburgh Spring & Steel Co. 
Pneumatic Gate Co. 
Poole Bros. 

Positive Lock Washer Co. 
Pratt & Lambert (Inc.). 
Pratt & Letchworth Co. 
Pressed Steel Car Co. 
Pyle-National Electric Headlight Co. 
Railroad Supply Co. 
Railway Age Gazette. 
Railway Steel-Spring Co. 
Ralston Steel Car Co. 
Ramapo Foundry & Wheel Works. 
Ramapo Iron Works. 
Rand, McNally & Co. 
Republic Iron & Steel Co. 
Revere Rubber Co. 
Ridgely ( Charles A. ) & Co. 
Robinson, Gary & Sands Co. 
Rodger Ballast Car Co. 
Rogers, Brown & Co. 
Ross-Meehan Foundry Co. 
Ryerson (Jos. T.) & Son. 
Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. 
St. Paul Foundry Co. 
Sawyer Goodman Co. 



Schieren (Charles A.) Co. 

Scranton Bolt & Nut Co. 

Scully Steel & Iron Co. 

Sellers Manufacturing Co. 

Sellers (William) & Co. (Inc.). 

Sherburne & Co. 

Sherwin-Williams Co. 

Simmons Hardware Co. 

Simmons Manufacturing Co. 

Soper Lumber Co. 

Spencer Otis Co. 

Standard Car Truck Co. 

Standard Car Wheel Co. 

Standard Coupler Co. 

Standard Forgings Co. 

Standard Heat & Ventilation Co. ( Inc. ) . 

Standard Paint Co. 

Standard Railway Equipment Co. 

Standard Steel Car Co. 

Standard Steel Works Co. 

Standard Supply & Equipment Co. 

Standard Tool Co. 

Storrs Mica Co. 

Stromberg, Allen & Co. 

Symington (T. H.) Co. 

Taylor (W. P.) Co. 

Tindel-Morris Co. 

Transue & Williams Co. 

Treat (C. A.) Manufacturing Co. 

Tyler Tube & Pipe Co. 

Tyler (W. S.) Co. 

Underwood (H. B.) & Co. 

Underwood Typewriter Co. 

Union Draft Gear Co. 

Union Spring & Manufacturing Co. 

Union Steel Casting Co. 

Union Switch & Signal Co. 

United States Light & Heating Co. 

United States Metal & Manufacturing 
Co. 

United States Metallic Packing Co. 

United Supply & Manufacturing Co. 

Walpole Tire & Rubber Co. 

Walsh (P. T.). 

Warner & Swasey Co. 

Weir Frog Co. 

Welsbach Co. 

Western Electric Co. 

Western Railway Equipment Co. 

Western Wheeled Scraper Co. 

Westinghouse Air Brake Co. 

Westinghouse Church Kerr & Co. 

Westinghouse Electric & Manufactur- 
ing Co. 

White Enamel Refrigerator Co. 

Whiting Foundry Equipment Co. 

Winston Bros. Co. 

Wood (Guilford S.). 

Worth Bros. Co. 

Wyckoff Pipe & Creosoting Co. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 89 

To Stbenghteh Railway Labob Arbitration Law — Editorials Ubginq 

[MMEDIA i 1: Ac HON. 
QUOTATIONS FROM THE PBESS COMPILED BY THE BAILWAY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION. 

Thirty-two publications in 13 States and aggregating 2,240,305 circulation as 
rated Id standard lists. 

[Chicago Daily News.] 

It is certain that the Erdman Art has proved a valuable instrument for the 
prevention of strikes on the Nation's railroads. The public knows well the 
harm that would come from a strike, crippling operations on any large number 
of the common carriers. However, the act is not wholly satisfactory either to 
the railroad managers or their employees. This was emphasized a few weeks 
ago in the negotiations between the managers and the firemen on rvi eastern 
railroads. Ir is asserted by the Railway Business Association thai the size of 
the arbitration hoard should he increased. As it is now constituted it has 
one member for each party to the dispnto and the third chosen by the other two. 
Another suggestion is that the time limit of 30 days now allowed for investiga- 
tion he changed, since this period may at times prove insufficient. The time 
for investigation, it is asserted, should he made elastic. It is proposed also that 
machinery he established for "standardizing, collecting, keeping, and furnish- 
ing information" to meet the need for accurate statistics and other data. The 
excellent suggestion is offered that "eligibility to appointment as a mediator 
having the function of appointing neutral arbitrators should he made to depend 
as completely as possible upon personality and experience for the specific func- 
tion of mediation." 

When these main proposals have heen thoroughly discussed by railroad man- 
gaud railroad workers, Congress ought to he in a good position to strengthen 
a law which lias already proved its inherent merit. This ought to be done at 
the present extra session. 

[New York Globe.] 

The obvious thing to do is to amend the Erdman Act at the extra session of 
Congress in the way of bringing more neutrals to the arbitration boards and in 
allowing, when needed, more time for investigation. Congress should take time 
enough from the tariff question to remove the admitted defects of the Erdman 
law. 

[St. Louis Times.] 

We believe President Wilson would find a rare opportunity to put some of 
his high and well-considered ideas into practical form if he could find time and 
sion during the special session to take up the matter of more effective 
arbitration. 

[Harrisbnrg (Pa.l Telegraph.] 

The Erdman Act, which has been the chief bulwark against railway strikes 
t«> date, has all but broken d«>wn on several recent occasions. Unless its defects 
are remedied, "widespread, and perhaps national, disaster" may result. 

[New York Tribune.] 

The Erdman Act should be amended to correspond with modern ideas. Arbi- 
tration by ;i larger board would be fairer to the public and more acceptable 

to the railroads and to their men. 

[ I'.ufTo lr, i n. y.i Commercial.] 

It is recognized, of course, that the scope of matters to be considered at the 
extra session of Congress will be limited. But the need of reassuring business 
and of averting all possible danger from this source in the future is ample 
se for including in the legislative program at Washington this Bpring con- 
sideration of the arbitration law. 

R rrlew of Reviews.] 

The Erdman Act ought to be bo amended as to provide for a larger number 
of arbitrators. 



90 ABBITEATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

[American Paint and Oil Dealer.] 

Shippers and the general public have a deep interest in this matter, for a 
railroad strike may easily become a national business disaster. 

[New York Evening Post.] 

Defects in the composition of the arbitrating board, as also hampering limi- 
tations upon the scope and time of its inquiries, should be removed. If we are 
to have this instrument for adjusting industrial disputes, everybody will con- 
cede that it ought to be made as perfect as possible. 

[Buffalo (N. Y.) Express.] 

The proper amendment of this act would deprive the disputants of all rea- 
sonable grounds for refusing arbitration. No union leaders and no railroad 
managers would dare to face public criticism by declining to arbitrate under 
an amended Erdman Act. 

[Brooklyn (N. Y.) Eagle.] 

The subject is well worthy of a place on the special-session calendar, the 
more so as it should not take long to dispose of it. Calamity may come in any 
event, but no effort to avert it should go by default. 

[Philadelphia Evening Telegraph.] 

The strike of tens of thousands of railroad employees, operating in concert, 
has become a menace in the public eye, for which some remedy is demanded. 
The time to prepare this remedy is now, not following a disastrous conflict 
which might easily have been averted. 

[New York Journal of Commerce.] 

Of late the principal complaint against the Erdman Act has not been based 
on the fact that it did not apply to enough industries, but has been founded 
upon the alleged defective character of the mechanism it set up for the manage- 
ment of those arbitrations which it provided for. In the railroad arbitration 
now in progress the roads were critical of the terms of the law, because of 
the short and necessarily inadequate time allowed for the consideration of the 
disputes before the arbitration board and because of the fact that so small a 
board — consisting of three members only — had the power to decide questions 
involving so much money. The labor men have not been satisfied with the way 
in which the arbitrators were picked out and have been desirous of improving 
the terms of the act. 

[Salt Lake City (Utah) Evening Telegram.] 

When the country as now constituted depends altogether on transportation, 
and the great cities, because of that dependence, never keep more than a week's 
provisions ahead, a destruction of railroads or a strike that would hold up 
railroads would be followed almost instantly by sore distress and in many 
cases starvation among the people crowded in the great cities. 

[Leslie's Weekly.] 

There is a feeling of anxiety in the business world and railroad circles over 
the possibility of an appalling general strike through the failure of the Erdman 
Act to meet the situation. While the extra session of Congress will consider 
only a limited number of questions deemed of great importance, an amendment 
to the Erdman Act is a matter of prime importance at this time. An amendment 
that would insure more adequate and equitable consideration of the interests 
of the public and that would guard as effectively as possible against the occur- 
rence of railroad strikes would give the whole business world much-needed 
assurance. 

[Sioux Falls Argus-Leader.] 

We hope that Congress will not adjourn before it undertakes such amendment 
of the Erdman Act as will make it a workable thing. It is important that this 
should be done at the present session instead of at the regular session, for the 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEE? 91 

more promptly it Is done the loss danger of the waste oi' another strike. To 
neglect the amendment of this law to some more convenient time is Like the post- 
ponement of taking out tire Insurance. Your property may burn before yon 
get around to it. in such cases as this delays are truly dangerous. 

[Mlddletown i X. Y. i Dally Argus.] 

Either the Erdman Act should be amended or some other measure substituted 
for it that would be entirely shorn of any valid objections thai might in anywise 
give a disputant a reasonable excuse for dec-lining to accept arbitration under it. 
A railroad strike in these days is s ( > far-reaching and disastrous in its effects 
upon all concerned that both managers and employees, to say nothing of the 
general public, must devoutly desire that some satisfactory court of arbitration 
shall be instituted whose edicts shall be absolutely just and unquestioned. 

[Springfield (Ohio) Sun.] 

Employees and operators of the great railroad systems of the country are of 
one mind as to the necessity of amending the Erdman Act so as to make impos- 
sible a strike on any of the great carriers of intra and interstate business. 

[Oakland (Cal.) Tribune .1 

It is to be hoped Congress will amend the Erdman arbitration act at a reason- 
ably early date. The Erdman Act has utterly failed to accomplish the end it 
was intended to serve, and the need of some better digested measure that will 
avert railway strikes becomes more pressing with time. Under existing condi- 
tions a genera] tie-up of railway traffic is likely to occur at any time. A 
paralysis of our transportation system would be disastrous. It is impossible 
to estimate what the consequences would be. Every class in every section would 
feel the effects. Grave disorders and much suffering would inevitably result. 
What is wanted is a substitute for the Erdman Act providing for a voluntary 
form of arbitration so little open to valid objection as to deprive disputants of 
all reasonable excuse for refusing to arbitrate under the law. The menace of 
strikes must be averted. 

[New York World.] 

The settlement of the dispute between the firemen and the railroads again 
emphasizes the necessity of amending the Erdman Act. 

LYork (Pa.) Dispatch.] 

If amendment of this law can make it better effective to insure amicable 
settlement of labor disputes that might otherwise result in interference with the 
free movement of railroad traffic, then the law should be amended as soon as 
possible. 

[Arizona Gazette] 

If such a bill can be prepared and introduced without any opposition, it may 
be possible to have it acted on at the present short, or extra, session of Con- 
gress without Interfering with the tariff or currency legislation. If such a happy 
event can be brought about, it would certainly meet with the approval of the 
public. 

[New York 1'ri (88.] 

After it finishes with its tariff business -anyhow, before it adjourns — Con- 
gress ought to see if it can not change this ad Into some more satisfactory 
form. This work onghl no1 to await the regular session of Congress. New 
ites between the railroad managers and their employees are already on 
the way. 

[St. Louis Post-Dispatch.] 

The law should hare a thorough overhauling. The public may have need of 
it at any moment to avert great loss and Inconvenience. 

[La Porte (Ind.) Herald.] 

The President and Congress can not do better than favor and urge con- 
sideration of appropri urea tor the strengthening and Improvement of 

the machinery for arbitration in railway labor COntrove* 



92 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

[Mobile (Ala.) Item.] 



To postpone remedial legislation is to invite widespread disaster at any 
moment. J 

[Pittsburgh Gazette Times.] 

It was hoped action could be secured at the extra session of Congress and 
Jt were possible to obtain an agreement of all parties in that body to take 
up the subject and dispose of it without undue controversy and prolonged 
debate this would be well, as the matters at issue are of importance to the 
whole public. Recent strikes, as well as difficulties encountered in warding off 
extensive strikes east and west, which might have paralyzed the railroad busi- 
ness, emphasize the necessity of removing defects in the only statute applving 
to such cases. 

[Buckingham Daily Record, Harrisburg, Pa.] 

The object of legislation should be to minimize the differences between 
classes and provide for the settling of disputes economically, speedily, justly, 
and conclusively, and so as to subserve the best interests of the public at large. 
If the present laws do not so provide, Congress should act promptly and pass 
such laws as will provide a remedy. 

[Rochester (N. Y.) Democrat and Chronicle.] 

Whether Congress will take up this urgent matter at the extra session 
remains to be seen, but its direct bearing on the welfare of the country makes 
it a question of almost predominating importance and interest. 

[Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.] 

The great public will approve any and every proposition having for its pur- 
pose the arbitration of disputes between labor and capital. 

[Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette.] 

The public is inclined to consider the question from the standpoint that most 
railroad strikes having been settled by arbitration, the danger of such labor 
difficulties is reduced to a minimum. But the country has been perilously 
near a number of wage conflicts that would have been a serious menace to 
business. If the arbitration law can be strengthened, certainly the strength- 
ening should be done. 

[Albany (N. Y.) Argus.] 

Many of the stanchest supporters of the Erdman law concede that it is 
not perfect. It is a step in the right direction, and has worked well. We can 
see no objection to Congress considering the amendments proposed and acting 
on them as the majority wills. 

[Kansas City Star.] 

A strike that would tie up railroads generally would be a national calamity. 
The whole country is interested in doing everything possible to avert such an 
event. Congress has an opportunity now to do an important public service 
in amending the Erdman Act to make it more nearly adequate to existing 
conditions. 



Business Men Urging Immediate Strengthening of Railway Labor Arbitra- 
tion Law. 

petition signed in chicago and new york, with names of signers, all heads 
of manufacturing enterprises. 

To Senators and Representatives in Congress: 

The undersigned manufacturers respectfully urge upon you the necessity of 
legislation at the extra session designed to make the Federal machinery for the 
arbitration of railway labor disputes acceptable to both sides. 

The conductors and trainmen's negotiation presents an emergency. Serious 
objections are raised to the Erdman Act. All reasonable excuse for declining 



ARBITRATION BETWEEH BMPLOYBBS AXD EMPLOYEES. 93 

arbitration and precipitating a strike to Involve half the country In loss and 
misery should be removed by strengthening the law 

As employers whose business would be interrupted and whose employees 
would suter grievous 'oss. wretchedness, and perhaps death in ease of 2£ 
cousidennion' W * ( ,h ° earl,eSl m0ment «> nsi steni with thorough 

Chicago : 

Adams & Westlake Co., Ward W. Willits, president 

Addressograpb Oo., .1. B. Hall, secretary. 

Ajax Forge Co., R. Ortmann, president." 

American Envelope Co., Richard P. Murrv. president 

American Sand & Gravel Co., X. C. Fisher, president 

American Shop Equipment Co., Jos. B. Terbell. president 

American steel Foundries. R. P. Lamont, president 

Arnold Co., Bion J. Arnold, president 

Austin, w. p.. ,v Co.. w. B Austin, president 

Automatic Electric Co.. II. A. Harris, vice president 

Barnes. A. R.. \ Co.. A. R. Rarnes. treasurer. 

Barrett, M. A.. Co.. M. A. Barrett, president 

Shandelier Manufacturing Co.. F. R. Farmer, secretary. 
& / o ler Mimng Co., H. E. Bell, president 

Beoningham & Seaman Co.. II. Beoningham, president 

Birkett Coal & Coke Co.. C. A. Birkett, president. 

Blakely-Oswald Printing Co.. John I. Oswald, president 
ey, D. W., Co.. Edw. F. Bosley, president 

Buda Co.. L. M. Viles, treasurer (Harvev. Ill ) 

Bur ley & Tyrol 1 Co. W. O. Coleman, president. 

Camel Co.. J. M. Hopkins, president. 

Central Electric Co.. George A. McKinlock, president 

Ceresit Waterproofing Co.. P. H. Hansen, vice president 

Chase & Sanborn. Carleton Moselev, member of firm 

Chicago Bridge & Iron Works, George Horton 

Chicago Car Heating Co.. Egbert H. Gold. 

Chicago Car Seal Co., L. W. Fuller, president 

Chicago Fire Brick Co., W. J. Gilbert, president 

Chicago Malleable Castings Co.. John T. Llewellvn, vice president 

Chicago Paper Co., W. E. Gillett. president. 

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., W. O. Duntlev. president 

Chicago Portland Cement Co.. Thomas Sutton, president 

Chicago Railway & Mill Supply Co., A. D. Gillespie 

Chicago Steel Tape Co.. L. A. Nichols, president. 

Chicago Railway Equipment Co.. R. R. Leisrh. president 

Chicago Varnish Co., O. H. Morgan, president. 

Chicago. Wilmington & Vermillion Coal Co.. T.A. Lemmon president 

Childs, S. D.. & Co., A. II. Childs, president. 

Clow. J. B., & Sons. W. E. Clow, president 

Cohen & Co., J. Cohen. 

Colics E. a T., Co.. Philip J. Sharkey, president 
. V. 1". Dpham, president. 

Cozznns ,V Beaton, F. R. Cozzons. president. 

Curtain Supply Co.. w. ii. Forsyth, general manager 

Davis. <;. M., Regulator Co.. George C. Davis, president 

Dearborn Chemical Co.. R. f. Carr, president 

Dee. William E.. Clay Manufacturing Co.. William E. Dee. president 

Deeve>. Griffin II.. & Co., Griffin II. Deeves, president. 

Donaldson & Pisher Co., Percy Donaldson, president 

Durand Steel Locker Co., Keith Spalding, president 

en. American Manganese 81 S. T. McCall 

i: ectric Appliance Co.. w. w. Low. president. 

ii Railway, a. f. Banks, president 

Eureka Coal & Dork Co., R. if. Gruschow, president 

Faulkner & Ryan Co., Thomas H. Faulkner, president 

Fitzhugh-Luther Co., C. HL Fitzhugh, president 

General Railway Supply Co„ EL U. Morton, rice president 
don iron Co.. m. Gordon, secretary, 
een Engiu< . . p. Albert Poppenhusen, president 

Griffin Wheel Co„ F. l. WhltcomB, rice president 

Grip Nut Co.. j. p. Hibbard, treasurer. 



94 A RBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

Chicago— Continued. 

Harty Bros. & Harty Co., G. M. Harty, president. 

Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Co., Ernest H. Heath, general manager. 
Henlon & Hubbell (Inc.), W. B. Henlon, president. 
Hettler, Herman M., Lumber Co., H. H. Hettler, president. 
Hewitt Manufacturing Co., E. C. Tourtelot, secretary and treasurer. 
Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co., Henry Bencke, manager. 
Hines, Edward, Lumber Co., L. L. Barth, vice president. 
Hine-Watt Manufacturing Co., L. H. Hine, president. 
Homer Roberts Manufacturing Co., Chas. A. Betterff, manager. 
Hough, William B., Co., William B. Hough, president. 
Humiston, Keeling & Co., F. Keeling, jr., president. 
Hunt, Robert W., & Co. 

Hyman-Michaels Co., Joseph Hyman, president. 
Illinois Car & Manufacturing Co., P. H. Joyce, president. 
Illinois Engineering Co., Robert L. Gifford, president. 
Illinois Malleable Iron Co., J. E. Bullock, secretary. 
Independent Pneumatic Tool Co., J. D. Hurley, vice president. 
Inland Steel Co., G. H. Josies, vice president. 
International Regulator Co., A. H. Woodward, president. 
International Tag Co., P. W. Henning, vice president and general man- 
ager. 
Joliet Railway Supply Co.. O. E. A. Laughlin, president. 
Jones, Morgan T., & Co., Morgan T. Jones, president. 
Joslin, A. D., Manufacturing Co., E. C. Buehur, secretary and treasurer. 
Joynce Watkins Co., W. T. Watkins, president. 
Karpen, S., & Bros., Adolph Karpen, secretary. 
Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co., L. D. Kellogg, president. 
Leach, L. D., & Co., C. C. Orange, treasurer. 
Love Brake Shoe Co., C. W. Ambrust, president. 
Marshall- Jackson Co., George E. Marshall, president. 
Merchants Steel & Supply Co., W. K. Kenly, president. 
Metal Specialties Manufacturing Co., L. W. Golder, secretary. 
Miller Chemical Engine Co., J. M. Miller, manager. 
Mordea Frog & Crossing Works, Irving T. Hartz, president. 
Mudge & Co., Burton W. Mudge. president. 
National Ticket Case Co., L. J. Blades, secretary and treasurer. 
Naugle Pole & Tie Co.. J. W. Benham, secretary and treasurer. 
Neahr, M. J.. & Co., Albert H. Yeeder, jr., president. 
Nichols, Geo. P., & Bros., S. F. Nichols, partner. 
Nicholas, G. J., & Co., G. J. Nickolas. 
Norris Klister Co., N. M. Klister, president. 

Northwestern Electric Co.. Samuel H. Martin, president and treasurer. 
Norton Door Check Co.. Lewis C. Norton, president. 
Nubian Paint & Yarnish Co., H. E. Hamilton, vice president. 
Ohio Iron & Metal Co?, M. Dreyfus, president. 
O'Neil, J. G. 

Otis Elevator Co., William D. Baldwin, president. 
Otley Manufacturing Co., Benjamin F. Otley, president. 
P. & M. Co., Philip A. Moore, secretary. 
Pease, C. F., Co., C. F. Pease, president. 
Perolin Co. of America. J. I. Kopperl. president. 
Pettibone, Mulliken Co., A. H. Mulliken, president. 
Poole Bros., George A. Poole, jr., vice president. 
Porter, Chas. M., Co., Charles M. Porter, president. 
Pyle National Electric Headlight Co., J. Will Johnson, general manager. 
Railroad Supply Co., Henry S. Hawley, president. 
Railway Supply & Curtain Co., Plato G. Emery, president. 
Rand, McNally & Co., H. B. Clowi president. 
Rittenhouse & Embree Co., M. F. Rittenhouse, president. 
Rogers & Smith Co., John O. Smith, jr., treasurer. 
Ryerson, Jos. T., & Son, S. T. Hendee, secretary. 
Salisbury, W. H., & Co., C. R. Blanchard, president. 
Sanford Manufacturing Co., William Rodiger, vice president. 
Scully Steel & Iron Co., A. B. Scully, president. 
Sellers Manufacturing Co., E. M. Kerwin, treasurer. 
Sellers Manufacturing Co., J. M. Sellers,' vice president. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 95 

Chicago — Continued. 

Shea, Smith & Co., George n. .Tonkins, president 
Sheldon, G. W., & Co., George W, Sheldon, president. 
Shepard, Henry O., Co., B. an'. Beedle, president 

Smith. F. P., Wire \ iron Works. E. P. Smith, proprietor. 

Snow, T. w.. ConstructioD Co., T. w. Snow, president. 

Sopor Lumber Co., James S. Morrill, treasurer. 

Sprague, Smith Co., Amos it. Smith, presides . 

Sprague, Warner *.v Co., a. a. Sprague, second vice president. 

standard Tar Truck Co., J. C. Barber. 

8 andard Forgings Co., George E. Van Ila.cen. 

Stebbins Hardware Co., Fred J. Stebbins, treasurer. 

Siovons. Charles <;.. Co., Charles 6. Stevens, president. 

Srtomberg, Allen A Co., Charles J. Stromberg, president. 

Swift & Co., A. R, Lay. 

Taylor, S. <; . Chain Co., S. G. Taylor, jr.. president. 

Templeton, Kenly & Co. (Ltd.), Walter B. Templeton. 

Thordarson Electric Manufacturing Co.. J. A. Herman, treasurer. 

Tinsley Railway Supplies & Equipment Co.. Robert Tinsley. president. 

Tousey Varnish Co.. C. A. Tousey, president. 

Tyler & Hlppach, A. S. Tyler, president. 

Lnion Draft Gear Co.. J. R. Cardwell, president. 

United Sta*es Blue Print Paper Co., John C. Nidetzky, president. 

Van Schaack, Peter & Sons. R. II. Van Schaack, president. 

Viscosity Oil Co.. W. G. Simmons, president. 

Yissen'nsr. Harry. & Co.. Harry Yissering. president. 

Wachs, E. II.. Co. 

Western Fire Appliance Works. L. IT. Des Isles, treasurer. 

Wes ern Stool Car & Foundry Co.. N. S. Reeder. 

Whiting, George, Co.. George Whiting. j)resident. 

Whiting Foundry & Fquipment Co.. T. S. Hammond. (Harvey. 111.) 

Winslow, Horace L.. Co.. H. L. Winslow, president. 

Wood. Guilford S.. Guilford S. Wood. 
ds, Edwin L. & Co.. Edwin I. Woods. 

Worcester, C. H., Co.. C. II. Worcester, president. 
New York : 

Alberger Pump & Condenser Co.. George Q. Palmer, president. 

American Arch Co.. Le Grand Parish. president. 

American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. Otis IT. Cutler, president. 

American Brake Shoo A- Foundry Co., W. G. Penrce. vice president. 

American Car & Foundry Co.. Frederick II. Faton, president 

American Hard Rubber Co., F. Achelis, president 

American Locomotive Co.. W. H. Marshall, president. 

Armspear Manufacturing Co., F. D. Spear, president. 

Ashcrof Manufacturing Co.. a. J. Babcoek, president. 

Atlas Preservative Co., R. X. Chipman, genera] manager. 

Bird-Archer Co., II. V. Bootes, secretary. 

Boyle, John. A Go. (Inc.), F. R. Thorns, secretary. 

Brady Brass M. Brady, president. 

Brander Go., t. W. Brander, president. 

Bridgeport Bi 88 C F. J. Kingsbury, president. (Bridgeport, Gonn.) 

Bridgeport Chain Co., Gregory s. Bryan, treasurer. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 

Bronze Metal Co.. Alex Turner, vice president and general manager. 

Buffalo Brake Beam Co., 8. A. Crone, president. 

Commercial Acetylene Railway Light & Signal Co., Oscar F. Ostby u'on- 
gent 
:>or Howitt Fle^trm Go.. Charles B. Hill, vice president and sroneral 
manacrer. (Hoboken, X. J.) 

1 ••■ eoise, president (Brooklyn, X. Y. i 

Dovoe. F. w.. & C. T. Raynolds, J. Seaver Page, president 

Dielectric Co. of America, O. T. Hungerford, general manager. (Belle- 
ville. X. J A 

Dixon. Joseph, Crucible Co., George T. Smith, president. (Jersey City, 
X. J.) 

Dressel Railway Lamp Works, F. W. Dresspl. prosident. 

Duplex Metals Co.. s. C. Munez, vice president. 



96 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES. 

New York — Continued. 

Edison, Thos. A. (Inc.), W. Maxwell, second vice president. (Orange, 
N. J.) 

Electric Railway Journal, Hugh M. Wilson, vice president. 

Fabric Fire Hose Co., W. T. Cole, president. 

Flower Waste & Packing Co., F. D. Waller, secretary and general 
manager. 

Forker, C. A.. Co., C. A. Forker, president. 

Foster Engineering Co., J. M. Foster, president. (Newark, N. J.) 

Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., Edw. E. Gold, president. 

Gould Coupler Co,, F. P. Huntley, vice president. 

Heyden Chemical Co., George Simon, vice president. 

Hildreth Varnish Co., P. F. Jennings, president. 

International Steam Pump Co., A. B. Dickson, president. 

Kieley & Mueller, Timothy Kieley, member firm. 

Knowles, C. S., W. H. Tantum, New York manager. 

Locomotive Stoker Co., W. S. Bartholomew, president. 

Locomotive Superheater Co., George L. Bourne, vice president. 

MacArthur Bros. Co., A. F. MacArthur, president. 

Magnus Metal Co., H. H. Hewitt, president. 

Manning, Maxwell & Moore (Inc.), A. J. Babcock, first vice president 

Nathan Manufacturing Co., Edw. S. Toothe, vice president. 

National Lock Washer Co., W. C. Dodd, president. (Newark, N. J.) 

Newhall Chain, Forge & Iron Co., Henry B. Newhall, jr., vice president. 

New York Air Brake Co., C. A. Starbuck. president. 

New York Leather Belting Co., Charles E. Aaron, president. 

New York Switch & Crossing Co.. W. C. Wood, president. (Hoboken, 
N. J.) 

New York & New Jersey Lubricant Co., C. A. Matthews, president. 

Pantasote Leather Co.. G. W. Outerbridge, treasurer and managing direc- 
tor. (Passaic, N. J.) 

Pitt Car Gate Co., William R. Pitt, president. 

Positive Lock Washer Co., John B. Ross, secretary. (Newark, N. J.) 

Power Specialty Co., E. H. Foster, vice president. 

Prentiss Tool & Supply Co., H. Prentiss, president. 

Prince Manufacturing Co.. W. J. Colwell, secretary. 

Railway Steel Spring Co., M. B. Parker, secretary. 

Reade Manufacturing Co., Charles H. Reade, manager. (Hoboken, N. J.) 

Revolute Machine Co., J. V. McAdams, president. 

Royal Equipment Co.. S. Simpson, president. (Bridgeport, Conn.) 

Rumsey Pump & Machine Co., L. D. Compson, proprietor. 

Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co., R. M. Dixon, president. 

Schaeffer & Budenberg Manufacturing Co. (Brooklyn, N. Y.) 

Schapirograph Co., F. C. Gottechalk, president. 

Sellew, T. G., Edw. P. Francis, of firm. 

Shaw Electric Crane Co., A. J. Babcock, president. 

Snow Steam Pump Co., A. B. Dickson, president. 

Standard Coupler Co., A. P. Dennis, vice president. 

Standard Heat & Ventilation Co., J. F. Deems, president. 

Standard Manufacturing Co., C. A. Hungerford, treasurer. 

Stewart, James & Co. (Inc.), A. M. Stewart, president. 

Tagliabue, C. J., Manufacturing Co., C. J. Tagliabue, president. (Brook- 
lyn, N. Y.) 

Tilden, B. E.. & Co.. J. M. Odeuheimer, president. 

Underwood Typewriter Co., Charles W. Hand, vice president. 

Union Stove Works, Edw. F. Hill, president. (Peekskill, N. Y.) 

U. S. Light & Heating Co., J. Allen Smith, vice president and general 
manager. 

U. S. Metal & Manufacturing Co., B. A. Hegeman, jr., president. 

Van Home, D. A., & Co., D. A. Van Home, jr., member of firm. 

Vinton Colliery Co.. Warren Delano, president. 

Volkhardt Co., William Volkhardt. (Stapleton, N. Y.) 

West Disinfecting Co.. George L. Lord, manager of railroad department. 

Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., John F. Wallace, president. 

Wiarda, John C, & Co.. John C. Wiarda. (Brooklyn, N. Y.) 

Worthington, Henry R., A. B. Dickson, president. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 97 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF SETH LOW, PRESIDENT THE 
NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERATION. 

Mr. Low. Mr. Chairman, I wish I might adequately express not 
only my own feeling and appreciation of the patient hearing that 
you have given to us but that of all others interested in this measure. 
I do thank you very heartily, indeed. 

The part of the National Civil Federation in this undertaking has 
been to bring together the railroads and the railroad brotherhood, 
and the bill represents, first of all. the opinion of Judge Knapp and 
Dr. Neill, who have had experience with the Erdman Act, and 
afterwards the agreement of the railroads and of the railroad em- 
ployees. I think the Civic Federation has had next to nothing to do 
with the actual shaping of the bill. We have done what we could to 
make the bill possible by bringing the two parties together, but it is 
really their bill. 

I feel exceedingly sorry that this question that has been raised by 
the Secretary of Labor — very properly from his point of view — is 
present at all. because what we are seeking in this measure is emer- 
gency action. We have an emergency to deal with. The proposition 
which the Secretary has raised is not an emergency proposition, but 
it goes to large general principles of governmental action. 

Secretary Wilson. Mr. Low, will you permit a question? 

Mr. Low. Certainly. 

Secretary Wilson. Is it not a fact that the emergency grows out 
of the limitations of the number of arbitrators provided by the 
Erdman Act. and not out of the personnel of those who administer 
the Erdman Act \ 

Mr. Low. Yes: I think so. I think if we could keep the same per- 
sonnel the question of organization would be comparatively indiffer- 
ent. Mr. Secretary, and yet you have heard from Dr. Xeill and Judge 
Knapp and others why they prefer this bill. 

All that I wish to say is that if this bill is passed, we have a 
nable certainty that railroad disturbances in this country in the 
near future will not take place, because the railroad presidents who 
are taking part in framing this bill and the organizations that have 
taken part in it. and in several instances have formally approved it, 
will operate under it. and therefore if this bill is passed we shall 
avoid whatever emergency is coming, and you yourselves have heard 
how serious that emergency may be. 

What I wished to say was in regard to the question that the Secre- 
tary of Labor ha- presented, that if it is in any way possible for 
me in cooperation with him to prepare an amendment to this bill 
that will meet both points of view I shall be only too glad to do it. 
I doubt if it is at all practicable to do it in time to meet this emer- 
gency, but I think if this bill is passed as an emergency measure that 
question may be taken up and considered on its merit in the most 
friendly way. 

At any rate, so far as the National Civic Federation is concerned, 
we should be very glad to give our good offices to that end. I am only 
afraid if that question is insisted upon now. if you get a bill that is 
more acceptable from some point- of view to the Government, it 
might not be used. Of course, I have no authority to say it would 
1421— S. Rept. 72 ; 63-1 7 



98 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

not be. Is it not better in the situation with which we are con- 
fronted to pass a bill which we know perfectly well will prevent 
industrial strikes on the railroad systems than any other way sug- 
gested ? 

I do not suppose that this bill is the last word to be said on this 
matter. You have got in it the experience up to this time. We 
will have new experiences under this act. What I suspect will take 
place if this bill is passed is that the pending arbitration will be held 
under its terms. If the gentleman appointed as Commissioner of 
Mediation and Concilitation by the President proves to be personally 
well equipped for that office, such arbitrations will continue. If he 
does not, I do not think any more arbitrations will be held under this 
bill until his personality is welcome to both sides. 

Secretary Wilson, Will you permit another question ? 

Mr. Low. Certainly. 

Secretary Wilson. If the Erdman Act was amended so as to 
broaden the scope or increase the numbers of the arbitrators, as pro- 
posed in this bill, would not that in itself meet the emergency, and 
the entire question of whether or not the commission should be re- 
arranged could be dealt with without emergency considerations? 

Mr. Low. So far as the National Civic Federation is concerned, it 
would meet it perfectly, Mr. Chairman. I may be mistaken, but I 
understood Mr. Stone — I am not sure whether Mr. Willard also — to 
express their opinion that it would not, that these arbitrators or com- 
missioners ought to be independent of any department. If the gen- 
tlemen on both sides will agree to accept it in the form that the Sec- 
retary suggests, nothing would be more agreeable to me; but I have 
no information that enables me to say that it will. 

Secretary Wilson. What I wanted to find out is whether or not 
these gentlemen were of opinion that an emergency existed with re- 
gard to the personnel of the mediators under the Erdman Act — 
whether they consider that part of the emergency, or whether the 
emergency did not grow out of the fact, and solely out of the fact, 
that the board of arbitration provided by the Erdman Act was too 
small? 

Mr. Low. Yes ; I think it is the size of the board which is funda- 
mentally the question of emergency, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Willard 
suggests that through the resignation of Dr. Neill a vacancy exists 
in the office that would act upon this matter under the Erdman Act 
as it stands, and that those who have framed this bill think that a 
man more likely to succeed would be obtained under the terms of this 
proposed bill where the appointment would be made by the President 
himself and confirmed by the Senate. 

Secretary Wilson. Is it not also true that under the Erdman Act 
that those who act as mediators are persons who are named by the 
President and confirmed by the Senate, and that the only difference 
there would be under the circumstances would be as to whether or 
not the Secretary of the department might suggest to the President 
the person who would act in that capacity? 

Mr. Low. I am not sure whether Mr. Stone is willing to speak 
upon this subject. If that amendment would be satisfactory to the 
parties concerned in this bill, I have no objection whatever. 



ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 99 

The Chairman. I understand your position to be that anything is 
satisfactory to the Civic Federation that these two parties agree to. 
You want anything that they agree to to go through? 

Mr. Low. Yes. sir. I think it is a tremendously important mo- 
ment in the industrial history of our country, not to say of the 
world. I do not believe that in any other civilized country you can 
it this present day absolute unanimity on a subject like this be- 
tween a large industry, like railroading, and its employees, other 
than in the United States. I do not believe that would happen any- 
where else, and it seems to me unless there be very strong objections 
to what they propose, the Congress of the United States will give an 
immense impulse to the friendly arbitration of labor disputes, not 
only in the railroad world but by influence in all other parts of the 
labor world, by acting favorably upon these suggestions. I think it 
has very much more far-reaching consequences than simply to settle 
the pending controversy. If these gentlemen come together and 
settle on a bill unanimously and it is not passed, I think it will be 
profoundly discouraging. If it is passed, I think it will be pro- 
foundly encouraging. 

As to this detail which the Secretary of Labor has raised, it would 
suit me just as well in the form he suggests as in this, but I have no 
authority to say that it will suit the railroad and the railroad 
brotherhood as well. 'What I do know is that they are willing to 
arbitrate under this bill, and therefore I hope very much that this 
bill may be passed and passed as an emergency measure in Congress, 
and that the Secretary and I may cooperate later to see whether we 
can not put the bill, in the respect which he now criticizes it, into a 
form which everybody concerned will be satisfied with. The fear is 
that if the attempt is made to do that now w T e shall not succeed be- 
cause of the pressure of time. If the Congress accepts the Secre- 
tary's suggestion, it may or may not solve the problem. If they 
accept the suggestion submitted in this bill, I think it will absolutely 
avoid railroad difficulties in the United States in the near future. 

Senator Pomerexe. Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest, in 
view of the question that was raised by Mr. Secretary Wilson, that 
there be incorporated in this record so much of the organic act cre- 
ating the Department of Labor as pertains to his duties in connec- 
tion with labor disputes. 

The Chairman. That will be done. 

The portion of the act referred to is as follows: 

- c.8. That the Secretary of Labor shall have power to act as mediator and 
to appoint commissioners of conciliation in labor disputes whenever in his judg- 
ment the interests of industrial peace may require it to he done; and all duties 
performed and all power and authority now possessed or exorcised by the head 
of any executive department in and over any bureau, office, officer, board, 
branch, or division of the public service by this net transferred to the Depart- 
ment of Labor, or any business arising therefrom or pertaining thereto, or in 
relation to the duties performed by and authority conferred by law upon such 
bureau, officer, office, board, branch, or division of the public service, whether 
of an appellate or revisory character or otherwise, shall hereafter ho vested in 
and ezecised by the head of the said Department of Labor. 

Mr. S - ; . Mr. Chairman, if it would not bo out of place, T should 
like to ask one question of Dr. -Will for the record, to make it a 



100 ARBITRATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

matter of record. I am sure that my position is right, but I should 
like to ask Dr. Neill if he has ever understood that in any of these 
mediation cases he was ever under any bureau at all ? 

Mr. Webb. He stated that this morning. 

Mr. Stone. I beg your pardon. I was out a part of the time this 
morning. I never understood that he was under anybody. I thought 
he was absolutely free. 

The Chairman. He stated that clearly this morning. 

We are very much indebted to you, gentlemen, for the clear expo- 
sition you have given of this bill and for your attention. The com- 
mittee will now adjourn. 

(Thereupon, at 5.20 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) 

c 






* 



